the death sentence

[mrmcdonaldduck]

what do you think about the death sentence?

i think that it should never, ever be used except in the most extreme circumstances, eg mass murder, continued release/escape and murder and repeated rape. Regular murder should be life or some sort of rehabilitation. There is also the chance of killing an innocent person, somethimg that would never happen if it was life.

your thoughts?

[nick]

I think its totally abhorent, wrong and has no place in civilised society

[enzenzz]

I'm for it but only for extreme cases that can be clearly proven that the person did the crime intentionally. Having them around is just a waste of money.

Hypothetically, if I were to be given a choice between a life sentence or death, I'd choose death.

[Camazotz]

I think we can all agree that killing is inhumane. This goes both ways; if you say killing is wrong, it's wrong to kill anyone no matter the circumstance. Life sentence is cheaper than keeping someone on death row and it will allow evidence to show up if any was missed during a convicted person's trial. This has happened many times; people are on death row when new evidence has shown up, proving the person innocent. If we had killed this person, we'd all be responsible for this person's death.

[deadpie]

Killing people that kill people doesn't always make killing people ok.

I knew someone in my family who was in death row for self defence.

I don't think anyone has the power to choose who deserves to die or not.

[JackOfClubs]

The death penalty is, in the vast majority of cases, the easy way out. They should have to rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Its pointless; it doesn't prove a point, help anyone, nor is it in any way civilized. If someone goes out and tortures and rapes someone, they should get life in prison.

[Lily of the Valley]

The death penalty is, in the vast majority of cases, the easy way out. They should have to rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Its pointless; it doesn't prove a point, help anyone, nor is it in any way civilized. If someone goes out and tortures and rapes someone, they should get life in prison.The death sentence is for the protection of others. It's not punishment or retribution or to make an example of them. A person can still be a danger to others when in prison.

~Maggot

[Disconected]

never under any circumstance. the government that kills doesn't get punished for killing, but the person that kills another person does. so that makes it unfair. the person should be sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole. its also cheaper to keep a person in prison for life then to kill them. when the death penalty is executed the person thats being killed isnt really being punished, his family is and they didn't do anything wrong

[Lily of the Valley]

never under any circumstance. the government that kills doesn't get punished for killing, but the person that kills another person does. so that makes it unfair. the person should be sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole. its also cheaper to keep a person in prison for life then to kill them. when the death penalty is executed the person thats being killed isnt really being punished, his family is and they didn't do anything wrongThe only reason it costs so much to sentence someone to death is because of the decades they spend on death row filing appeal after appeal. If it was done relatively quickly (within a few years), it would cost a fraction of what it does to keep them in prison for life.

And, as I said, it's not punishment. The point of the justice system isn't to punish people, it's to protect the general public. And killing a dangerous person is a pretty good way of doing that, doncha think?

~Maggot

[Darkness]

Death is death, why should we spend money on keeping people in prison so that they can die there rather than save lives in hospitals?

Of course it should never be used for a first offence other than in the worst crimes,

There would have to be a crimes of passion law,

A law that states that a FULL jury must be in favor of death or a confession signed,

and there should be no waiting around, five years then the fall of the trap door,

and none of this wishy washy "It must be painless or it's inhumane" shit, your ending someones life this is the ultimate violation of human rights,

Is it civilized? Well The greatest Civilization: Rome did it, so did Japan, Ancient Grease, The Greatest Empire: Britain (Me) did it until a while ago, The US does it, and China, Russia, Royalist France, the French Republic, Prussia, Germany, Spain, Pre-Union Ireland, Pre-Union Scotland, Pre-Union Wales, Pre-British India, And the First Civilisation: Egypt, In the face of such Science, Knowledge and Glory, how can we say it is not civilized?

All Religions have used it,

Perhaps a need for more than one level of death?-yes of course!

Level one: Death by firing squad, for Murder and The most extreme disablement

Level two: Hanging, for Rape and mass murder,

Level three: Hung, Drawn, Then Quartered, this will be received by the worst serial killers, crown traitors and war criminals,

Level four: any of the above, but recoeded for public proof, only where nessary.

[Sage]

A law that states that a FULL jury must be in favor of death or a confession signed,

Because a dozen people who are wrong are easier to forgive than one person who was wrong.

and there should be no waiting around, five years then the fall of the trap door,

Because no one's ever been found innocent after five years.

and none of this wishy washy "It must be painless or it's inhumane" shit, your ending someones life this is the ultimate violation of human rights,

So it's not a violation when the government does it, amirite?

Is it civilized? Well The greatest Civilization: Rome did it,

They also fed Christians to lions for public entertainment.

so did Japan,

They also killed themselves pretty quickly to preserve honor.

Ancient Grease,

GREECE. They were the foundation for the Roman Empire and so I don't need to say more.

The Greatest Empire: Britain (Me) did it until a while ago, The US does it, and China, Russia, Royalist France, the French Republic, Prussia, Germany, Spain, Pre-Union Ireland, Pre-Union Scotland, Pre-Union Wales, Pre-British India, And the First Civilisation: Egypt,

All those places either no longer exist or have stopped doing it. In the case of the US, it is not done in every state.

In the face of such Science, Knowledge and Glory, how can we say it is not civilized?

You're falling into an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. Just because someone great holds one opinion does not mean that holding that opinion makes them great. Regardless of how many times it may have been done throughout history I can still say it's wrong. I can name just as many "great" nations that have very nonchalantly used slavery.

All Religions have used it,

Go study religion.

Perhaps a need for more than one level of death?-yes of course!

I don't see the necessity. Explain.

Level one: Death by firing squad, for Murder and The most extreme disablement

Why?

Level two: Hanging, for Rape and mass murder,

Why?

Level three: Hung, Drawn, Then Quartered, this will be received by the worst serial killers, crown traitors and war criminals,

Why?

Level four: any of the above, but recoeded for public proof, only where nessary.

Why?

[Darkness]

Because a dozen people who are wrong are easier to forgive than one person who was wrong.

That's a miscarriage of justice not of the punishment.

Because no one's ever been found innocent after five years.

Now, that's not a fair assumption,

So it's not a violation when the government does it, amirite?

It is but the end justifies the means: a better world for all,

They also fed Christians to lions for public entertainment.

And became Christians themselves, is not the man who repents worth more than the man whom has been pure and righteous all his life?

They also killed themselves pretty quickly to preserve honor.

The ancient ceremony of Hara-Kiri is sacred to Some Japanese, please leave their cultures out of this,


GREECE. They were the foundation for the Roman Empire and so I don't need to say more.

Nor do I, sorry about my spelling... not good at it,

All those places either no longer exist or have stopped doing it. In the case of the US, it is not done in every state.

Just because a man or collection of men are dead or have died does not make there achievement any less valid, or would you have people stop using phones just because Mr Bell is dead?

You're falling into an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. Just because someone great holds one opinion does not mean that holding that opinion makes them great. Regardless of how many times it may have been done throughout history I can still say it's wrong. I can name just as many "great" nations that have very nonchalantly used slavery.

And how many have helped to abolish it? How many have invented such useful things? Made so much good in the world? I think you'll find the good greatly out runs the bad.

Go study religion.

I'll pass thanks it wont help this point,

I don't see the necessity. Explain.

Would you have a murder of thousands get away as quickly as a single woman who killed her husband for being unfaithful?

Why?

To prevent it happening again study the beginning closely, the perpetrator has probably all ready committed two murders,

Why?

Because rape is torture, and murder of 20 is worse of that than one.


Why?

Because a traitor is a traitor...from treachery to warrant prosecution, there can be no repentance,

Why?

Because the people demand it as their right, look at the execution of Saddam Hussein, they filmed him.



Please do reply...

[Sage]

Please do reply...

I'll save time and simply point out our single major disagreement.

It is but the end justifies the means

I will not take part in defending humanity if, in doing so, I have to lose my humanity.

[Darkness]

I will not take part in defending humanity if, in doing so, I have to lose my humanity.

That is your rightful opinon of course, I hope it is a comfort to you..

[nick]

That is your rightful opinon of course, I hope it is a comfort to you..
Its a comfort to me to know that there are other sane people out there who accept that killing is wrong. Simple as that. State sactioned killing is just as wrong as any other. The idea of different degress of painful death as just punishment is just sick.

[quartermaster]

Its a comfort to me to know that there are other sane people out there who accept that killing is wrong. Simple as that. State sactioned killing is just as wrong as any other. The idea of different degress of painful death as just punishment is just sick.

Yes, because anyone who demands reciprocity in the cases of the usurpation of property is not sane.

[The Joker]

I'm a bit of a flip flopper on this issue.

Some people can be proven innocent.

But others, such as Robert Pickton (murdered dozens of hookers, fed him to his pigs on his farm) are guilty, and have caused so much pain and suffering, and should not be trusted by anyone, including other prisoners. In that case, I do think he should get the death penalty.

[theOperaGhost]

I am pro-capital punishment. I voted "only in extreme circumstances" because I don't feel EVERY murderer should be put to death (only the majority of them). I see nothing wrong with the death penalty. I actually find it a bit sickening that so many people want to save the lives of people who murder others in cold blood. Murderers don't deserve to be saved.

[Sage]

I find it sickening that people witness murder and then want to take part in it. But hey, don't listen to me, I'm just a batshit crazy liberal.

[theOperaGhost]

I'm just a batshit crazy liberal.

Precisely....:P

Anyway....The way I see it, when you commit a crime, you owe a certain debt (comparable to the crime you committed). For theft that would be easy...for rape...hmm....should rapists get raped? NO. However I see castration to be the nearest thing to pay off their debt to society. A murderer takes a life...the only way they can pay that back is by giving their life...

[OneManArmy]

only in extreme circumstances, like mass murder, man slaughter etc. and when they say they're innocent when there is hard proof.

Sure, it's an easy way out for them, but keeping them in prison is a waste of money, and they have to been in constant supervision so that can't escape back into society and also that they keep him away from other inmates, easier for everyone else to kill them.

And if you think it's "inhumane", what they did is way more inhumane then executing them for it. People like this (hell they shouldn't even be called people) shouldn't been in this world.

[Suicune]

Ok. My look on the death sentence is that it's the best/worst way to deal with a person.
I think it SHOULD ONLY BE USED when they have been 100% convicted of Mass Murder, repeated Child Molestation (If totally intentional without a mental sickness) and some others I can't think off the top of my head. But also I mean the death sentence can be the person's golden ticket to freedom. But the fact that your life is in the hands of the law sends chills down my spine. I can't even imagine the frustration of a remorseful person in death row. Well bottom line, I have mixed feelings for it...

[The Batman]

Precisely....:P

Anyway....The way I see it, when you commit a crime, you owe a certain debt (comparable to the crime you committed). For theft that would be easy...for rape...hmm....should rapists get raped? NO. However I see castration to be the nearest thing to pay off their debt to society. A murderer takes a life...the only way they can pay that back is by giving their life...

But aren't we past that,"An eye for an eye" form of punishment? Really though I don't agree with the Death Penalty because it's the easy way out. Let these asshole rot in jail for the rest of their lives in a small room with no windows and only given food and water and a shower.

[Sapphire]

Taking a person's life is wrong and, as the old proverb goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

[theOperaGhost]

But aren't we past that,"An eye for an eye" form of punishment? Really though I don't agree with the Death Penalty because it's the easy way out. Let these asshole rot in jail for the rest of their lives in a small room with no windows and only given food and water and a shower.

I see nothing wrong with "an eye for an eye." Letting those assholes rot in jail just leads to more overcrowding of the already full prisons, which leads to building more prisons which WE are paying for. I'd rather being paying for a murderer to be executed than paying to keep them alive.

[Lily of the Valley]

I see nothing wrong with "an eye for an eye." Letting those assholes rot in jail just leads to more overcrowding of the already full prisons, which leads to building more prisons which WE are paying for. I'd rather being paying for a murderer to be executed than paying to keep them alive.Agreed. Although, I wouldn't suggest the death sentence for someone who killed another out of, like, rage. I mean, I know what it feels like to hate someone so much that it's hard not to kill them, and sometimes people just fucking deserve it. But serial killers, sociopaths, etc. They're just a danger to society, no matter where they are.Let these asshole rot in jail for the rest of their lives in a small room with no windows and only given food and water and a shower.That's called torture, deary, and it's not allowed in civilized nations.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

I see nothing wrong with "an eye for an eye." Letting those assholes rot in jail just leads to more overcrowding of the already full prisons, which leads to building more prisons which WE are paying for. I'd rather being paying for a murderer to be executed than paying to keep them alive.
I disagree.
The overcrowding of prisons is down to people being imprisoned for short periods of time for petty, non-violent crimes - not for being imprisoned for serious, violent ones. If you have a non-violent criminal whose sentence is 12 months or less then they would surely it would be better to give them a punishment other than imprisonment as this would alleviate the overcrowding, save taxpayers money and avoid such criminals learning how to commit more serious crimes from the other inmates.

[The Batman]

That's called torture, deary, and it's not allowed in civilized nations.

~Maggot

What wouild a prisoner need with luxuries for? Prison is suppose to be a punishment not a vacation. So just give them only what they need and let them really think about what they have done for the rest of their life.

[theOperaGhost]

I disagree.
The overcrowding of prisons is down to people being imprisoned for short periods of time for petty, non-violent crimes - not for being imprisoned for serious, violent ones. If you have a non-violent criminal whose sentence is 12 months or less then they would surely it would be better to give them a punishment other than imprisonment as this would alleviate the overcrowding, save taxpayers money and avoid such criminals learning how to commit more serious crimes from the other inmates.

And what exactly do you suggest their punishment be? A slap on the wrist and a fine? Yeah...that's really going to deter them from being criminals...

[quartermaster]

Everyone is creating these universal axioms about what is "right and wrong," it is actually quite a curious thing when we pick and choose ideal morals for our governments. Again, the death debate, just like our healthcare debate in another thread, is defined by the traditional conventions that society would have you believe are the only reasons for something to be "right or wrong." "It's barbaric!" "What if your mom was murdered?" etc. etc.

If a person punches another in the face, do they not forfeit their right to not be punched, in turn? (it then becomes a self-defense matter)

If a person intentionally smashes another person’s vehicle, vis a vis, another person’s property, should they not have to pay damages for that vehicle?

If a person usurps the life, or property, of another human being, should they not forfeit their own rights and have to exact compensation?

Did anyone stop to consider that murder in government should not be viewed so much as a moral issue, as everyone has their own morals that inevitably clash, but be considered as a property issue? If it were a property issue, then the punishment for the convicted would be to give reparations and compensation, as far as it can be given, to the next of kin for the loss of a contributor (emotional, financial etc.) to their family.

Of course, the ideal way to deal with murderers is the fabled "Death machine," where the life of the convicted would be exchanged and thus drawn into the body of the dead, thus killing the convicted and reincarnating the deceased victim. That is, of course, not possible, as such, the life of one person cannot be compensated, in full, however, if work camps for murders were setup where they would do labor, the wages that they would theoretically earn over a life period would go to the family of the deceased. Of course, if the family of the deceased does not want monetary compensation, but emotional compensation, the family should have the right to choose execution for the murderer (insofar as the person qualifies for the death penalty).

It goes down to freedoms and property rights: you usurp the freedom of another citizen, then you forfeit your own freedoms (meaning you go to jail), you seize or destroy property, you must exact compensation for that loss. Once more, since in the case of murder, there cannot be just compensation for a life, there can only be alternatives to compensate the family. I would argue, over simple punishment, it is also familiar compensation that is important: be it emotional or proprietary. To the state, it is not so much a matter of morality and the pretense or fallacy of "barbarism," or even giving the murderer the “easy way out,” it is about exacting just compensation, as far as it can be given, to the damaged party; since there can never be just compensation for murder, it can truly only be up to the damaged party to say how they can be compensated the most from their loss(es) (again, certain qualifications must be made, as torture is by nature, unconstitutional).

[theOperaGhost]

Everyone is creating these universal axioms about what is "right and wrong," it is actually quite a curious thing when we pick and choose ideal morals for our governments. Again, the death debate, just like our healthcare debate in another thread, is defined by the traditional conventions that society would have you believe are the only reasons for something to be "right or wrong." "It's barbaric!" "What if your mom was murdered?" etc. etc.

If a person punches another in the face, do they not forfeit their right to not be punched, in turn? (it then becomes a self-defense matter)

If a person intentionally smashes another person’s vehicle, vis a vis, another person’s property, should they not have to pay damages for that vehicle?

If a person usurps the life, or property, of another human being, should they not forfeit their own rights and have to exact compensation?

Did anyone stop to consider that murder in government should not be viewed so much as a moral issue, as everyone has their own morals that inevitably clash, but be considered as a property issue? If it were a property issue, then the punishment for the convicted would be to give reparations and compensation, as far as it can be given, to the next of kin for the loss of a contributor (emotional, financial etc.) to their family.

Of course, the ideal way to deal with murderers is the fabled "Death machine," where the life of the convicted would be exchanged and thus drawn into the body of the dead, thus killing the convicted and reincarnating the deceased victim. That is, of course, not possible, as such, the life of one person cannot be compensated, in full, however, if work camps for murders were setup where they would do labor, the wages that they would theoretically earn over a life period would go to the family of the deceased. Of course, if the family of the deceased does not want monetary compensation, but emotional compensation, the family should have the right to choose execution for the murderer (insofar as the person qualifies for the death penalty).

It goes down to freedoms and property rights: you usurp the freedom of another citizen, then you forfeit your own freedoms (meaning you go to jail), you seize or destroy property, you must exact compensation for that loss. Once more, since in the case of murder, there cannot be just compensation for a life, there can only be alternatives to compensate the family. I would argue, over simple punishment, it is also familiar compensation that is important: be it emotional or proprietary. To the state, it is not so much a matter of morality and the pretense or fallacy of "barbarism," or even giving the murderer the “easy way out,” it is about exacting just compensation, as far as it can be given, to the damaged party; since there can never be just compensation for murder, it can truly only be up to the damaged party to say how they can be compensated the most from their loss(es) (again, certain qualifications must be made, as torture is by nature, unconstitutional).

This it basically the long version of what I said in a previous post. Good post!

[Lily of the Valley]

What wouild a prisoner need with luxuries for? Prison is suppose to be a punishment not a vacation. So just give them only what they need and let them really think about what they have done for the rest of their life.I didn't say give them luxuries. I don't think that's appropriate. But depriving them of sunlight and human contact? That's torture.

Also, as has been said, I understand hating someone so much that the desire to kill them is very strong. Just because a person might give into to that desire, that doesn't necessarily make them a terrible person.

~Maggot

[The Batman]

IMO a serial killer, serial rapist, and a mass murderer don't need human contact and if they want sunlight than sure take them outside so they can stretch their legs every now and then. They have solitary confine which is pretty much what I'm describing so why have one and not the other?

[Lily of the Valley]

IMO a serial killer, serial rapist, and a mass murderer don't need human contact and if they want sunlight than sure take them outside so they can stretch their legs every now and then. They have solitary confine which is pretty much what I'm describing so why have one and not the other?Don't need human contact or don't deserve it? There's a huge difference.

Solitary confinement is only used as a necessity to protect staff and other inmates. It's not something they just decide to do because they don't like the prisoner.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

And what exactly do you suggest their punishment be? A slap on the wrist and a fine? Yeah...that's really going to deter them from being criminals...Community service and fines are better for petty criminals like vandals. They are paying their debt to society and getting punished for their transgression.
To lock them up with fraudsters, drug traffickers and the such like is much more likely to end up equipping them with the necessary skills to reoffend.

Also, while we are on the topic of deterring criminals, why are you against the aforementioned punishments on the grounds that it doesn't deter criminality but are simultaneously for the death penalty which also doesn't deter criminality?
Everyone is creating these universal axioms about what is "right and wrong," it is actually quite a curious thing when we pick and choose ideal morals for our governments. Again, the death debate, just like our healthcare debate in another thread, is defined by the traditional conventions that society would have you believe are the only reasons for something to be "right or wrong." "It's barbaric!" "What if your mom was murdered?" etc. etc.

If a person punches another in the face, do they not forfeit their right to not be punched, in turn? (it then becomes a self-defense matter)

If a person intentionally smashes another person’s vehicle, vis a vis, another person’s property, should they not have to pay damages for that vehicle?

If a person usurps the life, or property, of another human being, should they not forfeit their own rights and have to exact compensation?

Did anyone stop to consider that murder in government should not be viewed so much as a moral issue, as everyone has their own morals that inevitably clash, but be considered as a property issue? If it were a property issue, then the punishment for the convicted would be to give reparations and compensation, as far as it can be given, to the next of kin for the loss of a contributor (emotional, financial etc.) to their family.

Of course, the ideal way to deal with murderers is the fabled "Death machine," where the life of the convicted would be exchanged and thus drawn into the body of the dead, thus killing the convicted and reincarnating the deceased victim. That is, of course, not possible, as such, the life of one person cannot be compensated, in full, however, if work camps for murders were setup where they would do labor, the wages that they would theoretically earn over a life period would go to the family of the deceased. Of course, if the family of the deceased does not want monetary compensation, but emotional compensation, the family should have the right to choose execution for the murderer (insofar as the person qualifies for the death penalty).

It goes down to freedoms and property rights: you usurp the freedom of another citizen, then you forfeit your own freedoms (meaning you go to jail), you seize or destroy property, you must exact compensation for that loss. Once more, since in the case of murder, there cannot be just compensation for a life, there can only be alternatives to compensate the family. I would argue, over simple punishment, it is also familiar compensation that is important: be it emotional or proprietary. To the state, it is not so much a matter of morality and the pretense or fallacy of "barbarism," or even giving the murderer the “easy way out,” it is about exacting just compensation, as far as it can be given, to the damaged party; since there can never be just compensation for murder, it can truly only be up to the damaged party to say how they can be compensated the most from their loss(es) (again, certain qualifications must be made, as torture is by nature, unconstitutional).The one main problem I see here is that crimes are against the State or the general population and not against an individual. Therefore it is the State, rather than the victim or their family, that prosecutes the defendant.
This seems better, IMHO, as it enables objective judgments to be made on the sentence the defendant receives. Leaving that decision to be made by a victim or the victims family is to let subjective judgments prevail and, ultimately, lead to the breakdown in reliability and stability that the legal system is based on.

The only other problem I have with your post is that you seem to be regarding human life on the same level as material possession with the talk about dealing with violent criminals in a parallel manner to non-violent criminals.

[theOperaGhost]

The death penalty DOES deter criminality. There is a higher chance of deterrence if the highest punishment is death. The higher the punishment, the more deterrence there will be. Death is obviously a higher punishment than life, so (in theory) the death penalty serves as a deterrent for criminality.

As an example. Living close to the American/Canadian border, I encounter a lot of Canadian drivers. Canadians drive like hell in America...speed horribly. However, when I go to Canada, I rarely ever see anyone speed. The reasoning for this is the penalties for traffic violations are MUCH more harsh in Canada than in America. A $10 fine in America for speeding probably equals like a $200 fine in Canada for going to same amount over the speed limit.

The harsher the crime, the higher the deterrence rate.

[2D]

Why do we kill people who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong? Beats me. Makes no sense really. Yes I think they're a waste, yes they're taking up room and have no place in society, but do I think they should die? No.

[Sapphire]

The death penalty DOES deter criminality. There is a higher chance of deterrence if the highest punishment is death. The higher the punishment, the more deterrence there will be. Death is obviously a higher punishment than life, so (in theory) the death penalty serves as a deterrent for criminality.

As an example. Living close to the American/Canadian border, I encounter a lot of Canadian drivers. Canadians drive like hell in America...speed horribly. However, when I go to Canada, I rarely ever see anyone speed. The reasoning for this is the penalties for traffic violations are MUCH more harsh in Canada than in America. A $10 fine in America for speeding probably equals like a $200 fine in Canada for going to same amount over the speed limit.

The harsher the crime, the higher the deterrence rate.Actually, murder rates in countries/States with the death penalty are no lower than murder rates in countries/States without the death penalty.
In fact, some studies show that the reverse is true and that the amount of murders are actually higher in the US States which have the death penalty.
See this (http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085%5B/URL)
And this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)
While this study shows (http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol58/issue3/donohue.pdf) that Canada have - since it abolished the death penalty - had consistently lower murder rates than the States, whereas before their murder stats were higher than the USA's. It also illustrates the lower murder rates in US States which didn't have the death penalty at all (from 1960 onwards) than in those who had. There has been a decrease in recent years to these rates but that evidently isn't down to the death penalty.
This page (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440332004?open&of=ENG-2AF) shows that the USA has a higher rate of murder per 100,000 people than a number of European countries who do not have the death penalty. It also quotes a study into murder and executions in Nigeria between 1967 and 1985 which concluded that the death penalty most definitely did not deter criminality as murder rates had actually risen during this period.

It clearly isn't a deterrent.

[theOperaGhost]

Actually, murder rates in countries/States with the death penalty are no lower than murder rates in countries/States without the death penalty.
In fact, some studies show that the reverse is true and that the amount of murders are actually higher in the US States which have the death penalty.
See this (http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085%5B/URL)
And this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)
While this study shows (http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol58/issue3/donohue.pdf) that Canada have - since it abolished the death penalty - had consistently lower murder rates than the States, whereas before their murder stats were higher than the USA's. It also illustrates the lower murder rates in US States which didn't have the death penalty at all (from 1960 onwards) than in those who had. There has been a decrease in recent years to these rates but that evidently isn't down to the death penalty.
This page (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440332004?open&of=ENG-2AF) shows that the USA has a higher rate of murder per 100,000 people than a number of European countries who do not have the death penalty. It also quotes a study into murder and executions in Nigeria between 1967 and 1985 which concluded that the death penalty most definitely did not deter criminality as murder rates had actually risen during this period.

It clearly isn't a deterrent.

Do these studies take into account the cultures of these countries?

This is like saying if we outlawed guns in America, murder rates would drop. Well, guess what...we'd still have one of the highest murder rates of any country because if you look at crime statistics, we have one of the highest rates of murder without the use of fire arms. Americans are statistically and historically more violent than most other nations simply by the fact that the country was founded out of rebellion. Countries cannot be compared to each other for statistical purposes simply because the culture is different in every country.

[Sapphire]

Do these studies take into account the cultures of these countries?

This is like saying if we outlawed guns in America, murder rates would drop. Well, guess what...we'd still have one of the highest murder rates of any country because if you look at crime statistics, we have one of the highest rates of murder without the use of fire arms. Americans are statistically and historically more violent than most other nations simply by the fact that the country was founded out of rebellion. Countries cannot be compared to each other for statistical purposes simply because the culture is different in every country.
Are you not taking into account the differences between the different US States that the above studies discussed then?

Also, the studies that look at the situation in other countries all contribute to the topic of capital punishment as a deterrent. They show that it didn't deter people in both Canada and Nigeria (two very different cultures) and can actually illustrate the reverse relationship.

And considering that you are so fond of comparing the USA with Canada, why is it not ok for me to make such a comparison?

[theOperaGhost]

Are you not taking into account the differences between the different US States that the above studies discussed then?

Also, the studies that look at the situation in other countries all contribute to the topic of capital punishment as a deterrent. They show that it didn't deter people in both Canada and Nigeria (two very different cultures) and can actually illustrate the reverse relationship.

And considering that you are so fond of comparing the USA with Canada, why is it not ok for me to make such a comparison?

I was comparing the punishment differences in traffic violations between Canada and America...not the criminality.

[Sapphire]

I was comparing the punishment differences in traffic violations between Canada and America...not the criminality.Actually, you were using it as an example to support your claim that harsher punishments are a deterrent.
I used the same two countries to support my claim that the death penalty (the harshest punishment going) is not a deterrent.

Either way, the differences found in all of those studies shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

[quartermaster]

The one main problem I see here is that crimes are against the State or the general population and not against an individual. Therefore it is the State, rather than the victim or their family, that prosecutes the defendant.


Yes, crimes are against the state (I would argue they should not be, but that is a separate issue), however, I would call for a paradigm shift; the fact that the crime is against the state does not mean that there cannot be just compensation to the grieved. Again, it would be the state that would look at this as a property issue, which, in turn would allow for a more just compensation.

To reiterate another point, since the state could never exact just compensation through any punishment of the convicted, I argue that it should be the family that decides the fate of the murderer (pending legality, such as eligibility of death penalty, for whatever reason). The pretense that the state "owes it to the family," to make the criminal "rot" in jail or be executed is simply absurd and is an example of the "benevolent state" mentality; that somehow the state can tell the family what they are "owed" for the death of their loved one. Further, the pretense that we, as citizens, can tell the family what they are “owed” is equally as heinous.

To be sure, there have to be limits, but a crime against the state does not mean that a family cannot, or should not, be compensated for their loss. If that axiom is applied, then since there can never be true compensation for the crime, I believe the only way to serve the victimized party is by allowing them to have some say in exacting that compensation. I am not calling for the scrapping of the judicial system or the oversight of a judge, but I am calling for the state to change its views on how murder is viewed. The pretense of having a “moral” judicial system is why we have absurd debates like this today; perhaps it would be possible if most Americans had the same, or at least similar warrants of a “moral” society, but that is simply no longer the case. Barbarism to one, is reciprocity to another…


This seems better, IMHO, as it enables objective judgments to be made on the sentence the defendant receives. Leaving that decision to be made by a victim or the victims family is to let subjective judgments prevail and, ultimately, lead to the breakdown in reliability and stability that the legal system is based on.


“Objective judgments,” and tell me, what difference does this exactly make? If it is a property issue, which I would argue, then the convicted forfeited their own propriety; if property rights prevail, then the defendant, once convicted, should be subject to the act of providing compensation. I would contend, that in such a case, only the family, nearest of kin etc., could say how they can be compensated the most, by the convicted (Again, insofar as it is within the constraints of the law and judgment).


Leaving that decision to be made by a victim or the victims family is to let subjective judgments prevail and, ultimately, lead to the breakdown in reliability and stability that the legal system is based on.


And how is that? Innocent before proven guilty would prevail and the case would still be presided over by a judge and jury, with attorneys defending each side. The system would thus keep its reliability and stability in establishing justice in court. Nothing would change, except in the way of which the state views murder and how the family could be compensated.


The only other problem I have with your post is that you seem to be regarding human life on the same level as material possession with the talk about dealing with violent criminals in a parallel manner to non-violent criminals.

That would be an incorrect assumption, I regard human life in the highest respect (which is why I am against abortions) but I am trying to convey to you that the state should view this as a property issue because it is, in the end, a property issue. The idea that the state can represent everyone’s morals is impossible, and even when the state represents the morals of the majority (such as the death penalty is some states), people still call for its abolition on “moral” grounds. It is difficult to base public policy on morality, as such, it much be viewed through the nature of the crime: what is the crime? Who was injured? How can the usurper be punished and the victim compensated? As per our legal system, for the most part, a human’s life and body is their property, as such, I would argue that criminals should be sentenced along the lines of property. If a human life is, indeed, the property of that human, then when that property right is intentionally usurped or violated, it is, in the end, a basic problem of “material possession.”

Despite all of this, I acknowledge that if we have different warrants as to if a human life is the property of the human, I could never get you to agree on any of my premises.

[Sapphire]

I can largely see your point but I can't get past the fact that you are calling it a property issue.
But it isn't about what is owed to the family of the victim. The current legal system sees what is owed to the community - getting a violent offender off the streets - and punishes the criminal sometimes with rehabilitation as well, depending on where you are in the world, to assure they don't reoffend.

And for many, the loss of a loved one cannot be compensated for in any way so how would the criminal be sentenced in that situation?

I'm also interested in what the purpose of the judge would be - other than to supervise the court proceedings and to formally state the sentence - in your ideal scenario because they wouldn't be deciding on a sentence and they wouldn't be involved in the process of coming to a verdict.

[quartermaster]

But it isn't about what is owed to the family of the victim.

Again, that is what I want changed in the perception of the state, I acknowledge that the state does not see it as such; I am simply applying a new form of thinking.


The current legal system sees what is owed to the community - getting a violent offender off the streets - and punishes the criminal sometimes with rehabilitation as well, depending on where you are in the world, to assure they don't reoffend.

Yes, but if we were to apply the current government view of sentencing, both can be facilitated, as this is not a zero-sum game; just because something facilitates one service, does not mean it is only defined by facilitating that service, there can be other services fulfilled. So for instance, in this case, it would serve to keep the offender off the streets as well as to protect society, and it would serve to provide a form of compensation to the family. Looking at this from a property point of view does not change the fact that society wants punishment for crimes (you rob a bank with nonviolent means or steal cars enough times, you will be in jail for quite a long time; but these are still property issues).


And for many, the loss of a loved one cannot be compensated for in any way so how would the criminal be sentenced in that situation?

I would argue that a death of a family member can never be compensated (I said that many a time in my previous posts), but what I am saying is that the family would have a role in attempting to exact some compensation, or exact as much compensation as can be had from the loss of a loved one (sometimes, that compensation is financially necessary because of the loss of a bread-winner).

Your basic premise here against my case, is a bit of a false dichotomy to be honest, as there really is no real dilemma. If the family does not want to be involved within the sentencing to attempt to receive as much compensation as could possibly be given for their loss, then society would "take the reigns," as it were. This would then simply be a matter of the state where the judge would sentence to protect society and future usurpation of property rights. Again, two roles can be attempted to be fulfilled: protection and compensation.


I'm also interested in what the purpose of the judge would be - other than to supervise the court proceedings and to formally state the sentence - in your ideal scenario because they wouldn't be deciding on a sentence and they wouldn't be involved in the process of coming to a verdict.

The judge would still be effectively in charge of the punishment as they would sit down with the family and decide how they can be best compensated for their loss. The judge would then construct something that is peaceable to the family and to the necessities of the state. This, of course, does not even include the issue of minors, involuntary manslaughter, second-degree murder et cetera, in cases such as these, the judge would have to be intricately involved, as such cases are not as clear-cut as premeditated murder. This is just one proposal, one possible role that the judge can play, but again, it is a false dilemma, as viewing murder as a property right and having the family be involved in exacting compensation does not have to eliminate the judge and his powers of arbiter in sentencing, unless, of course, you let your mind look at it from a single scope; there are always several options.

Beyond that, I would really like to open up your mind beyond the social constraints that are being put onto it.

Who says that a crime has to be against the state? Who made that a universal axiom? To be sure, that is the way it is, but that does not mean it has to be that way, or should be that way. The way the state perceives it today is irrelevant to my argument, as it is how the state should see it.

Further, who said that a judge has to have any more of a role than just presiding over the case?

I am not saying these are necessarily right or wrong in this case (meaning society’s need for punishment or a judge’s role as “sentencer”), I am just trying to establish that just because it is defined as such, does not mean it has to remain as such. I hope to broaden the scope, as it were, of our traditional form of thinking to open up the debate outside of this "zero-sum game" way of thinking.

[INFERNO]

I think that before the sentence of the death penalty is handed done, one should determine why the accused did whatever they did. If they killed someone or raped people numerous times, I think it's beneficial to know why they did it. It'd be beneficial because a) if it's a form of mental illness it may be able to be treated in a more civil manner, b) give the family some possible closure and c) aid in research of human behavior.

The issue I have against it is that if you sentence the wrong person, then you cant do anything about it. If you sentence the wrong person to jail or prison for, say, 15 years, then although you may have screwed up their life, they still have a life. From the lectures in forensic psychology, we learned that one of the strongest forms of evidence in court is a confession. The problem is, so many times these confessions are actually false confessions. In high-profile cases, such as in serial murder cases, there tends to be people wanting to be the guilty party even if they're not. If you sentence them to death then you've screwed yourself twice, one for not getting the real killer and two for killing an innocent person. While there are methods used to avoid this, it still is possible to occur.

The other reason why I'm somewhat against the death sentence is that supposing the accused is actually guilty and they have no form of mental illness or anything else, it seems somewhat hypocritical to use the death sentence. Killing someone is deemed illegal and so the way the accused is punished is by killing them.

It also seems rather barbaric because in Western societies, I like to think we're actually civilized. We have crimes such as rape but having a sentence whereby you kill the person because the "people" don't want to inprison the accused seems so uncivilized. It reminds me of when they held public executions or when Malleus Malficarum was in play. I understand it may give the families closure but is it really an effective way for society to deal with people they don't want?

Lastly, we as humans in comparison to other animals tend to view ourselves as rather high and value human life. Why then would we kill someone we don't want? To me it seems that it's a demonstration of how society doesn't value all human life equally or that society doesn't value human life as high as it tries to make it seem. I'm not sure which one it may be because regardless of the choice, it leads to a storm of other problems that pile on top.

In the long-run it doesn't lead anywhere good because although society may have eliminated a possible threat, it seems to in a way encourage society to view the death sentence more favourably. If we have serial murders, rapists and so forth killed, then we may have pleased a part of society and gradually more will be pleased. There's still going to be a group that's against it but as we continue to have these death sentences in use, it only leads to problems for society.

[Death]

I do not believe that the death sentence shoudl ever be used, even for death. Not because I value the lives of rapists and serial killers and the like, but because the punishment will be short lived since they will no longer be alive to feel the punishment. Prison however is more of a punishment since the criminal can reflect on what he/she's done and feel bad and unfree because of prison wheras if they were dead, they would obviously feel nothing. To me, life-long prison seems more unfavourable than death.

[greg95]

what do you think about the death sentence?

i think that it should never, ever be used except in the most extreme circumstances, eg mass murder, continued release/escape and murder and repeated rape. Regular murder should be life or some sort of rehabilitation. There is also the chance of killing an innocent person, somethimg that would never happen if it was life.

your thoughts?
i agree. unless u actually witness the person killing some one else, there will always be a doubt over their culpability.

[Hyper]

Yeah.. Simply put murder is wrong, doesn't matter what you call it or who does it... And the state doing it is even worse its murder + hypocrisy - the thing that breeds the greatest arrogance & stupidity in society..

Feel free to pull out any historical facts you remember from your last viewing of a documentary.... Or just ignore me.

[boy.on.laptop]

Unless if you are a conservapedia extremiest, if you are a christian you are a hypocrite for supporting the death pentalty under ANY circumstances, "He who has done no worng can cast the first stone"

[Sage]

Unless if you are a conservapedia extremiest, if you are a christian you are a hypocrite for supporting the death pentalty under ANY circumstances, "He who has done no worng can cast the first stone"

I find it amusing that the people who are "pro-life" are also widely "pro-death penalty". But that's neither here nor there.

[Death]

That's always got me as well. I don't think any of these people are truly pro-life at all - instead, they just use it as an excuse.

[Eagle1]

an eye for an eye unless in self defense.

[theOperaGhost]

I find it amusing that the people who are "pro-life" are also widely "pro-death penalty". But that's neither here nor there.

I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment. Why? Because murderers DESERVE to die. The reason I am strongly against abortion is because an INNOCENT life is ended. A murderer is not innocent and they deserve to be killed. There really isn't a comparison there.

[karl]

I think its totally abhorent, wrong and has no place in civilised society
child killers and rapists have no place in civilised society

[Sapphire]

child killers and rapists have no place in civilised society
Which is why they are imprisoned.

[theOperaGhost]

Which is why they are imprisoned.

Agreed...for the most part. Rapists (although I feel they DESERVE to die) haven't killed anyone, therefore they don't owe their life. Murderers on the other hand do owe their life.

[Death]

So you hate murderers because they kill so you are going to do the same as them by killing them?

Another way of looking at it: are they truly being punished? By killing them, they are learning no lesson and feeling no pain or inconvenience becuase they're dead. But by imprisoning them indefinetely, they are being punished and cannot kill another person. Besides, you can always release them afterwards if they're proven innocent.

[theOperaGhost]

So you hate murderers because they kill so you are going to do the same as them by killing them?

Another way of looking at it: are they truly being punished? By killing them, they are learning no lesson and feeling no pain or inconvenience becuase they're dead. But by imprisoning them indefinetely, they are being punished and cannot kill another person. Besides, you can always release them afterwards if they're proven innocent.

Do you think anyone who has been imprisoned for years and is then proven innocent is going to live a normal life? Even for a short of a time as like 5 years...when they get released back into society, everything will be so different, they will still be rejected by society, etc...They won't be able to live a functional life.

Have you ever seen "Shawshank Redemption"? After Red is released, he tries to lead a normal life, but society won't accept him and he has nothing. He ends up hanging himself shortly after his release. Now, he was imprisoned for several years (possibly decades...I don't remember), but it's still a valid point. They are going to end up dying one way or another, basically.

I see killing a murderer to be retribution and necessary, not murder. What do you do if someone decks you and knocks you out? You can't defend yourself, so there is no self defense involved, but aren't you going to find that person and get retribution on them? I know I sure as hell would. That bastard is getting his ass knocked out...An eye for an eye is a good thing.

[Sapphire]

Do you think anyone who has been imprisoned for years and is then proven innocent is going to live a normal life? Even for a short of a time as like 5 years...when they get released back into society, everything will be so different, they will still be rejected by society, etc...They won't be able to live a functional life.It is possible though, which is better than them not having the chance at all.

Have you ever seen "Shawshank Redemption"? After Red is released, he tries to lead a normal life, but society won't accept him and he has nothing. He ends up hanging himself shortly after his release. Now, he was imprisoned for several years (possibly decades...I don't remember), but it's still a valid point. They are going to end up dying one way or another, basically.Brooks (the character who kills himself) was imprisoned for about 50 years. A lot changes in society over 5 decades and he was institutionalized after serving so long and he was at least 70 - that's a lot for one person to deal with on their own.
Red was released and - although he found it difficult to adjust to working in a supermarket - he ended up leaving, meeting up with Andy (the guy who escaped) and having a life he enjoyed living.

I see killing a murderer to be retribution and necessary, not murder. What do you do if someone decks you and knocks you out? You can't defend yourself, so there is no self defense involved, but aren't you going to find that person and get retribution on them? I know I sure as hell would. That bastard is getting his ass knocked out...An eye for an eye is a good thing.
The legal system is there to keep order in society, not to replicate and enforce outdated ideas of punishment.

[theOperaGhost]

It is possible though, which is better than them not having the chance at all.

Brooks (the character who kills himself) was imprisoned for about 50 years. A lot changes in society over 5 decades and he was institutionalized after serving so long and he was at least 70 - that's a lot for one person to deal with on their own.
Red was released and - although he found it difficult to adjust to working in a supermarket - he ended up leaving, meeting up with Andy (the guy who escaped) and having a life he enjoyed living.


The legal system is there to keep order in society, not to replicate and enforce outdated ideas of punishment.

It is possible, yes, but it is extremely difficult for a person like that to find a place in society again. I would personally rather be killed than live a life that has no chance for growth and will not be accepted by anyone.

I obviously need to watch Shawshank Redemption again...sorry I didn't know all the details...I thought it was Red that hung himself and I forgot about Brooks. However, where did Red and Andy end up? Mexico or something like that? They lived a happy life, but very few people would be able to adjust to that.

The justice system is there to keep order in society by rehabilitating, punishing, and deterring criminals. The death penalty is an effective form of punishment that is NOT excessive. Torture and solitary confinement ARE excessive because they are prolonged. Punishment is supposed to be swift, which the death penalty is. Why fix something that isn't broken?

[Sapphire]

It is possible, yes, but it is extremely difficult for a person like that to find a place in society again. I would personally rather be killed than live a life that has no chance for growth and will not be accepted by anyone.How do you know that no one accepts people who have served a sentence in prison?
How do you know that they don't have a chance to grow after being released?
There are organisations that help them get jobs, education and accommodation and emotional/financial support.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that an ex-convict is more likely to be employed than someone who has a history of hospitalisation for mental health issues.
Clearly ex-cons are not as rejected in society as you are depicting.

They lived a happy life, but very few people would be able to adjust to that.How's that?

The justice system is there to keep order in society by rehabilitating, punishing, and deterring criminals. The death penalty is an effective form of punishment that is NOT excessive. Torture and solitary confinement ARE excessive because they are prolonged. Punishment is supposed to be swift, which the death penalty is. Why fix something that isn't broken?I'm glad we agree that the legal system is there to keep order, rehabilitate, punish and deter.
But, how is the most final punishment available a swift and non-excessive one?
How can we, in the modern age, justify basing laws and ending lives on an outdated idea of "an eye for an eye"?
How can the law employ the death penalty as punishment for criminals and keep order in society when murder rates rise as capital punishment is introduced and enforced?

The death penalty is in violation of the most important human right we all have. It is cruel and based on a very outdated idea (an eye for an eye). Torture is also cruel and in violation of everyones basic human rights.
Neither have a place in our society.

[nick]

The death penalty is in violation of the most important human right we all have. It is cruel and based on a very outdated idea (an eye for an eye). Torture is also cruel and in violation of everyones basic human rights.
Neither have a place in our society.
Absolutely

[Aves]

In extreme, EXTREME cases. Such as a mass genocide. There, I think it would be justifiable. Any other cases though, eh...not so much.

[theOperaGhost]

How do you know that no one accepts people who have served a sentence in prison?
How do you know that they don't have a chance to grow after being released?
There are organisations that help them get jobs, education and accommodation and emotional/financial support.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that an ex-convict is more likely to be employed than someone who has a history of hospitalisation for mental health issues.
Clearly ex-cons are not as rejected in society as you are depicting.

How's that?

I'm glad we agree that the legal system is there to keep order, rehabilitate, punish and deter.
But, how is the most final punishment available a swift and non-excessive one?
How can we, in the modern age, justify basing laws and ending lives on an outdated idea of "an eye for an eye"?
How can the law employ the death penalty as punishment for criminals and keep order in society when murder rates rise as capital punishment is introduced and enforced?

The death penalty is in violation of the most important human right we all have. It is cruel and based on a very outdated idea (an eye for an eye). Torture is also cruel and in violation of everyones basic human rights.
Neither have a place in our society.

We are never going to agree on this issue. I respect your opinion and understand it completely and in all honesty, I think your opinion is more moral and "right" than mine. I still don't plan on changing my opinion any time soon because I feel that capital punishment is a good thing (not necessarily a "right" thing), but I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you, mainly because this debate is going nowhere and I have nothing to present at the moment to refute your opinion.

[quartermaster]

I find it amusing that the people who are "pro-life" are also widely "pro-death penalty". But that's neither here nor there.

I too find it amusing that people would object to the death penalty under the "moral" of saving a life (a life of which has proven to be destructive, while at once, uncaring of others lives) while during the intervening time, will just as easily allow for the destruction of another, unborn, but unproven life, under the morally convenient pretense of non-sentience. We live in an ironic world, to be sure.

However, I would be lying to say I really find it amusing, I find it, above all else, quite simply baffling.

[Sapphire]

We are never going to agree on this issue. I respect your opinion and understand it completely and in all honesty, I think your opinion is more moral and "right" than mine. I still don't plan on changing my opinion any time soon because I feel that capital punishment is a good thing (not necessarily a "right" thing), but I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you, mainly because this debate is going nowhere and I have nothing to present at the moment to refute your opinion.
I'm not asking (or even looking for) you to change your opinion, Jared. I was just asking some questions so I could see more where you are coming from.

This is the question that I feel to be the most important one in my last post:
"How can the law employ the death penalty as punishment for criminals and keep order in society when murder rates rise as capital punishment is introduced and enforced?"

[soccer]

I am undecided right now. I could see why people are for it. For example if one kills another's family member on purpose, there I can see how angry and revolting people would be towards the murderer, but I also do not agree with the death sentence. After all it is murder all the same.

I also find it confusing.......

Have you ever heard the saying: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Its basically telling those who do something bad should receive the same punishment, but if you think about it if a murderer is sentenced to death, wouldn't the person who person who performs the execution be a murderer too? They took a life purposefully by ending this person's life. Therefore should they then be murdered?

[Bluearmy]

It is useless to try to rehabilitate some criminals...

[Rutherford The Brave]

It is useless to try to rehabilitate some criminals...

But if you kill them, then you just gave up. You didnt even try to change them, or understand what might be wrong with them. Your dealing with fate, here this isn't a game. Life is the most precious thing that one has. Don't take that away from anyone. No one deserves that.

[theOperaGhost]

"How can the law employ the death penalty as punishment for criminals and keep order in society when murder rates rise as capital punishment is introduced and enforced?"

The only answer I can give you for this question is this. If capital punishment is abolished, murder rates are NOT going to go down. Murder rates will continue to rise. It's really a lose-lose for the criminal justice system. Either way the criminal justice system is bogged down with criminals. People on death row flood the courts with appeals. People serving life fill the prisons. Either way is very costly and they both have terrible downfalls. The only way we are ever going to deter crime is to somehow "cure" a criminal before they can commit a crime. Rehabilitation can only go so far. It's not exactly easy to fine tune a persons brain and there is no way to change their environmental influences. Crime is inevitable in society. I guess I've gone into an unrelated side tangent, but I think you should understand my post.

[Sage]

People serving life fill the prisons.

Actually much of prison crowding comes from people serving 1 or 2 year terms for really petty shit like marijuana possession.

[theOperaGhost]

Actually much of prison crowding comes from people serving 1 or 2 year terms for really petty shit like marijuana possession.

Yes, I know that. I'm not an idiot, I guess I just have to make every fucking word I ever say more clear for everyone.

People serving life take up the space needed for other violent or non-violent felons. There are WAY more non-violent felons serving time than people serving life. More space needs to be accommodated for these non-violent felons, because they are filling up the prison system. This space CAN be opened up by using capital punishment on people serving life without the possibility of parole (which isn't a large population, but every little bit helps). This would open up SOME space to hold non-violent felons. It's really not a difficult thing to figure out.

[clone]

im for the death penalty it makes perfect sense but my other side is thinking "what about the innocent framed people" hate this multiple personality thing maybe only if series and PROVEN.

[Sapphire]

"How can the law employ the death penalty as punishment for criminals and keep order in society when murder rates rise as capital punishment is introduced and enforced?"

The only answer I can give you for this question is this. If capital punishment is abolished, murder rates are NOT going to go down. Murder rates will continue to rise. It's really a lose-lose for the criminal justice system. Either way the criminal justice system is bogged down with criminals. People on death row flood the courts with appeals. People serving life fill the prisons. Either way is very costly and they both have terrible downfalls. The only way we are ever going to deter crime is to somehow "cure" a criminal before they can commit a crime. Rehabilitation can only go so far. It's not exactly easy to fine tune a persons brain and there is no way to change their environmental influences. Crime is inevitable in society. I guess I've gone into an unrelated side tangent, but I think you should understand my post.Are you purposefully ignoring the findings that I put to you earlier on in this thread?
It has been well documented that when the death penalty is introduced and enforced, the murder rates are higher.

[theOperaGhost]

Are you purposefully ignoring the findings that I put to you earlier on in this thread?
It has been well documented that when the death penalty is introduced and enforced, the murder rates are higher.

There is no way that the death penalty is the cause for higher murder rates. Murder rates would still rise without the death penalty.

[Sapphire]

There is no way that the death penalty is the cause for higher murder rates. Murder rates would still rise without the death penalty.
I'm not saying that the death penalty caused the rise but it has been documented that executing criminals is linked with higher murder rates and abolishing capital punishment is linked with lower murder rates.
We cannot infer a causal relationship between capital punishment and murder rates because it is only a correlation. It is clear that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

Look, i think that one of the reasons that the death sentence doesnt work as a deterent is that it is not public, people dont see it and be scared.

[Sage]

Look, i think that one of the reasons that the death sentence doesnt work as a deterent is that it is not public, people dont see it and be scared.

Yeah, let's go back to draconian fear tactics. That's really civilized.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

Yeah, let's go back to draconian fear tactics. That's really civilized.

im not saying we should, in saying thats why it isnt a detterent anymore.

[Sage]

im not saying we should, in saying thats why it isnt a detterent anymore.

Oh, sorry. It's late. xD Thanks for clarifying.

[liveyoungdiefast]

I've never really understood why so many people appeal their death sentences when the alternative is life in prison without parole. Of course, if they eventually hope to get the conviction overturned (or escape or wait for the next revolution or something) then that is a rational goal but many appeal their death sentences with knowledge that they'll never leave prison, I suppose it is an appeal to our primal instincts to survive.

But let us look at death for what it is - the end of consciousness. Now I'm sure many of the public have fantasies of their most hated killers burning in hell and I'm sure quite the few condemned hope the lethal injection sends them to heaven but both are delusions. Non-existence is not a punishment. A living person's thought of non-existence can be considered a punishment and whether it's ethical or not to inflict that on murderers is each person's own call. Personally I'm against the death penalty for the reason that it seems to satisfy primitive lusts in many people (as in the general public that wants a person dead) and I think for humanity to advance itself, we need to move past our hedonistic use of justice for collective pleasure.

[Black or White]

I believe it is fine when it is punishment for mass murders, I dont think the death sentence is suitable for a one time murderer and rehabiliatation/prison would be the best option in those cases. People like Saddam Hussein, the death sentence I believe is right for them.

[Triceratops]

I don't agree with the death penalty.
No individual should have the right to hold the decision whether they must end a criminals life or not.

Mass murders, serial rapists, child abusers etc should be locked away in a confined prison cell for an appropriate amount of time (not to mention very long), for the given crime. I don't see anything particularly beneficial in killing these people.

I would rather these sick bastards rot in jail and endure a hell of a lot of emotional suffering for years as a consequence for their twisted actions. The death penalty just seems like an easy escape for them.

[ThatDude93]

I think the death sentence is good for some circumstances.....putting someone in prison for life costs a lot of taxpayers money...and idk about you but I don't wanna waste my well earned money keeping some psychopath alive....plus some people just can't be rehabilitated

[INFERNO]

I think the death sentence is good for some circumstances.....putting someone in prison for life costs a lot of taxpayers money...and idk about you but I don't wanna waste my well earned money keeping some psychopath alive....plus some people just can't be rehabilitated

There are several things you mentioned that I have a problem with. First, you mention some people cannot be rehabilitated. While you do indeed have a point there, I find it to be problematic when we don't try to rehabilitate the person and instead just say "oh screw it, let's kill them". Psychotherapeutic rehabilitation is negative in some cases in that it helps the patient become a more proficient criminal, however, let's not forget that there is pharmacological treatments and for drastic measures, surgical treatments. At least this way we don't just toss in the towel because it's too hard to do psychotherapeutic treatment, we can also have plenty of research opportunities. If possible, the patient/criminal can serve some time outside the prison but still be monitored especially for their medications.

I'll admit though, pharmacological treatments may and probably don't address the true causes of the criminal's actions and psychopathology, however, it does reduce the symptoms to a point where the criminal is much more manageable while still being functional. Take for example a pedophile, there are psychotherapeutic treatments for it but there are also pharmacological treatments, which make the pedophile much more manageable. If possible, the person could even be released from prison after their sentence of course or unless they got early release, however, they'd still have to come in every month or so.

So when the death sentence is encouraged, I see it as pretty much presenting a perfect solution to the problem of getting comparison groups and then just throwing it all away.

The other issue is that I feel we should be absolutely certain that the criminal is indeed guilty of their crime(s). With false imprisonment, the best we can do is expunge it from their record and give some compensation but with the death sentence it's pretty much "Oops, he/she was innocent, well tough luck we killed an innocent person".

My ideal view is that the criminal can be kept in prison and possibly for life without parole and with their consent, be research volunteers. To me it's solving two problems at once. The issue of money spent on the criminal though I think is well-worth the effort and possible outcomes and benefits from the research and for society. If it means keeping an incredibly dangerous killer out of the streets by spending a bit more money, then fine I'm willing to have that.

[The Ninja]

I'm for it but only for extreme cases that can be clearly proven that the person did the crime intentionally. Having them around is just a waste of money.

Hypothetically, if I were to be given a choice between a life sentence or death, I'd choose death.

i agree but wouldnt choosing death be like suicide or just common sence

[haibekah]

The way some people look at it is: an eye for an eye. they killed someone, raped someone, etc, by doing that they forfeited their own life.

[deadpie]

Death penalty is boring. It doesn't scare anybody. An injection is the easy way out of breaking the law. Anyways, allot of people that are put to death have been proven innocent.
If you want a rapist or murderer to really feel like shit for what they do, you get that person a prison cell to live in for the rest of their life. But then they don't really learn their lesson i guess. I do believe people can change if you actually work with them.
So I don't know. The end really doesn't justify the means.
But i hate when people say, "i think death penalty is bad UNLESS(or EXCEPT)....(insert crime here)". It's like saying, i won't eat bacon unless you put extra grease on that fucker. I mean, who are you to say which crime is worse then the other?

[Rainstorm]

But i hate when people say, "i think death penalty is bad UNLESS(or EXCEPT)....(insert crime here)". It's like saying, i won't eat bacon unless you put extra grease on that fucker. I mean, who are you to say which crime is worse then the other?

Yes, because Petty Larceny is worth the same as Rape/Arson/Homicide/Genocide.

What we're saying is that only those big crimes truly deserve the death crime.

[Perseus]

Yes, because Petty Larceny is worth the same as Rape/Arson/Homicide/Genocide.

What we're saying is that only those big crimes truly deserve the death crime.

If you rape someone, you shouldn't be put to death. Geeze, that's a little extreme.

[theOperaGhost]

If you rape someone, you shouldn't be put to death. Geeze, that's a little extreme.

Raping someone is a little extreme. It ruins their lives, sometimes even leading people to suicide. There are different levels of rape of course, but sadistic rape is possibly one of the worst crimes a person can commit...even worse than murder in my opinion...murder at least puts the person out of their misery.

[Perseus]

Raping someone is a little extreme. It ruins their lives, sometimes even leading people to suicide. There are different levels of rape of course, but sadistic rape is possibly one of the worst crimes a person can commit...even worse than murder in my opinion...murder at least puts the person out of their misery.

I just don't think that raping someone should give you the death sentence. It may be a horrible, terrible crime, but still, I don't think it is punishable by death. It just doesn't seem right to me for you to kill someone who didn't even kill someone themself. If they rape multiple people, and I mean a lot and torture them and the lot, then possibly, but not a one time offender or something.

[theOperaGhost]

I just don't think that raping someone should give you the death sentence. It may be a horrible, terrible crime, but still, I don't think it is punishable by death. It just doesn't seem right to me for you to kill someone who didn't even kill someone themself. If they rape multiple people, and I mean a lot and torture them and the lot, then possibly, but not a one time offender or something.

Rape isn't a capital offense, so it isn't punishable by death. I don't even think a single murder should be a capital offense....only serial murder should be punishable by death.

[Sapphire]

I just don't think that raping someone should give you the death sentence. It may be a horrible, terrible crime, but still, I don't think it is punishable by death. It just doesn't seem right to me for you to kill someone who didn't even kill someone themself. If they rape multiple people, and I mean a lot and torture them and the lot, then possibly, but not a one time offender or something.
You will be very, very hard pushed not to find someone who's raped once and never ever again...

[2D]

Geez what's with you guys and always getting onto the topic of rape. It's weirding me out. :P But seriously, I'm going to pose the same question that I asked before. Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I still support it though. I'd rather keep my money to support me rather than a murderer.

[punkjake]

I believe in my opinion,that the value of a life should be cherished.Even if we are random or we were made by a god,you only get one life and it should be valued.I would want them to be isolated though,for the protection for other people.But like someone said ,if we say killing is bad,then there is no justice for doing it back.If the world had an eye for an eye, then we would all be blind:yeah:.

[INFERNO]

If you rape someone, you shouldn't be put to death. Geeze, that's a little extreme.

I assume you know what PTSD is and if so, you can figure out by the name what rape-trauma syndrome is. Let me spit out some numbers for you regarding rape victims (mostly all female): after 1 month passed, 65% were diagnosed with PTSD; after 9 months 47% were diagnosed with PTSD and after 15 years, 16.5% were diagnosed with PTSD. These results were by Kilpatrick, Saunders, Veronen, Best & Von (1987). More recently, Cortina and Kubiak (2006) found slightly higher rates of PTSD. Something that's minor doesn't cause such profound effects, especially 15 years after the event. That's something quite extreme.

I just don't think that raping someone should give you the death sentence. It may be a horrible, terrible crime, but still, I don't think it is punishable by death. It just doesn't seem right to me for you to kill someone who didn't even kill someone themself. If they rape multiple people, and I mean a lot and torture them and the lot, then possibly, but not a one time offender or something.

There are a few problems though. First, there are various rapist typologies, such as the ones Atkinson (1996) formulated for female sex offenders (research suggests they rape a fair bit but few are caught), Groth's typology for child molesters (1982) and rapists (1979), The Revised Rapist Typology, Version 3 (MTC:R3) made in the 1990s and Lanning's (1992) typology of child molesters. The issue with saying only a certain rapist gets the death penalty is two-fold: which rapist because the typologies have some different kinds and what do the others get punished with?

For some, such as the sadistic ones, they rarely rape only once but the law authority may not know that right away. For example, female sex offenders occur a lot more than thought, such as 5% of college men admitted to being raped as children and 60% of the culprits were females. Another study found 43% of females to be the culprits, most of whom were babysitters. So the problem is with figuring out if the person committed more acts. It's reasonable to assume they may have but you'd need detailed criteria for the death sentence that the people can meet.

Another issue is, what if the offender is a youth? Suppose they raped, killed, tortured, etc..., then what is their sentence?

You'll find that making the criteria for the death sentence is difficult because it may under-represent many of the offenders.

[Perseus]

I assume you know what PTSD is and if so, you can figure out by the name what rape-trauma syndrome is. Let me spit out some numbers for you regarding rape victims (mostly all female): after 1 month passed, 65% were diagnosed with PTSD; after 9 months 47% were diagnosed with PTSD and after 15 years, 16.5% were diagnosed with PTSD. These results were by Kilpatrick, Saunders, Veronen, Best & Von (1987). More recently, Cortina and Kubiak (2006) found slightly higher rates of PTSD. Something that's minor doesn't cause such profound effects, especially 15 years after the event. That's something quite extreme.



There are a few problems though. First, there are various rapist typologies, such as the ones Atkinson (1996) formulated for female sex offenders (research suggests they rape a fair bit but few are caught), Groth's typology for child molesters (1982) and rapists (1979), The Revised Rapist Typology, Version 3 (MTC:R3) made in the 1990s and Lanning's (1992) typology of child molesters. The issue with saying only a certain rapist gets the death penalty is two-fold: which rapist because the typologies have some different kinds and what do the others get punished with?

For some, such as the sadistic ones, they rarely rape only once but the law authority may not know that right away. For example, female sex offenders occur a lot more than thought, such as 5% of college men admitted to being raped as children and 60% of the culprits were females. Another study found 43% of females to be the culprits, most of whom were babysitters. So the problem is with figuring out if the person committed more acts. It's reasonable to assume they may have but you'd need detailed criteria for the death sentence that the people can meet.

Another issue is, what if the offender is a youth? Suppose they raped, killed, tortured, etc..., then what is their sentence?

You'll find that making the criteria for the death sentence is difficult because it may under-represent many of the offenders.

I do not know what "PTSD", but I know what rape trauma is. Do you mind explaining to me what "PTSD" is becaus I don't have the time to google it right now.
I understand your post and all that, but I don't think just someone who randomly rapes someone should get deathrow.
Yes, there are some cases where it is reasonable, but not all cases are reasonable.

[Sapphire]

I do not know what "PTSD", but I know what rape trauma is. Do you mind explaining to me what "PTSD" is becaus I don't have the time to google it right now.PTSD = Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
It is characterised by nightmares, flashbacks and hypervigilance besides other things.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/posttraumaticstressdisorder/posttraumaticstressdisorder.aspx
I understand your post and all that, but I don't think just someone who randomly rapes someone should get deathrow.Define what you mean by "someone who randomly rapes"

[Brazdar]

I think death sentence should not be aloud, none have the right to take some else's life, no matter what terrible acts and crimes the one has done, living with the remorse should much more than a punishment than death; and if those are not 'able' to feel any remorse at all, I think they should be forced to face and acknowledge remorse for their actions. Killing a criminal does not make anyone better and it won't bring the dead back alive so death penalty seems pointless to me.

[theOperaGhost]

Define what you mean by "someone who randomly rapes"

Generally (IMO) date rape, campus rape, and marital rape could fall under "someone who randomly rapes." For instance campus rape...assault by a man met at a party, often involves the excessive use of alcohol by both parties. Both parties are drunk and things may become passionately heated between both parties. The guy takes it too far and in the morning the girl realizes they had sex last night at that party. She reports it as a rape (which it is).

This is what I would consider to be "someone who randomly rapes." I don't think they have a malicious intent to rape someone...they are inhibited and act in ways they normally wouldn't and they take things farther than they should go.

Here are more stats about acquaintance rape. "More than half (50-60%) of college women report being the victim of sexual aggression, 20-30% of admitted to such behavior. In more than half of all rapes reported in 1991 the assailant was known by the victim. In reported sexual assaults and rapes, victims knew their assailant in 78% of the incidents. Many victims of acquaintance rape don't perceive themselves to be victims."

[Triceratops]

I interpret someone who "randomly rapes" as someone one preys on their victim, perhaps in the street or the local park, without actually knowing them personally (or they may possibly know them, or have been following them around secretly for a certain duration of time); only for the benefit of their sick and twisted motives. I can't remember who already mentioned this in the thread, but someone who rapes is extremely likely to do it again, or has already done it multiple times beforehand.

A death sentence shouldn't be given to some who's been found guilty of rape, absolutely not. I still stand by my inital view that capital punishment should always be forbidden. I just think that the prison sentence's need to be a hell of a lot more reasonably longer.

[Perseus]

PTSD = Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
It is characterised by nightmares, flashbacks and hypervigilance besides other things.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/posttraumaticstressdisorder/posttraumaticstressdisorder.aspx
Define what you mean by "someone who randomly rapes"

That's what I was thinking it meant, but I wasn't sure abot it. Thanks for the clarification.

What I mean is some dude is just walking by some lady, abducts her, rapes her, and never rapes again. I know it's rare, but it's just an example of who I don't think someone who does that should be put to death over a one time rape.

[Sapphire]

Generally (IMO) date rape, campus rape, and marital rape could fall under "someone who randomly rapes." For instance campus rape...assault by a man met at a party, often involves the excessive use of alcohol by both parties. Both parties are drunk and things may become passionately heated between both parties. The guy takes it too far and in the morning the girl realizes they had sex last night at that party. She reports it as a rape (which it is).

This is what I would consider to be "someone who randomly rapes." I don't think they have a malicious intent to rape someone...they are inhibited and act in ways they normally wouldn't and they take things farther than they should go.Thank you for that. But I was actually asking for clarification on what DaTrooper meant when he said "randomly rapes" as opposed to a definition of random rapes.
But while we are here, why do you define pretty much all acquaintance rapes as "random"?

Here are more stats about acquaintance rape. "More than half (50-60%) of college women report being the victim of sexual aggression, 20-30% of admitted to such behavior. In more than half of all rapes reported in 1991 the assailant was known by the victim. In reported sexual assaults and rapes, victims knew their assailant in 78% of the incidents. Many victims of acquaintance rape don't perceive themselves to be victims."I know the stats, thank you. But I'm still not sure why you are talking about acquaintance rape being "random".
I'm curious, where did you get your claim that many of these victims don't see themselves as victims from? I ask because I know that, through my own experiences and those I have spoken with (on- and off-line), that isn't the case.
What I mean is some dude is just walking by some lady, abducts her, rapes her, and never rapes again. I know it's rare, but it's just an example of who I don't think someone who does that should be put to death over a one time rape.
So a random guy goes out of his way to abduct and rape someone and never does it again? Lol, trust me, that's not going to happen.

[INFERNO]

I think death sentence should not be aloud, none have the right to take some else's life, no matter what terrible acts and crimes the one has done, living with the remorse should much more than a punishment than death; and if those are not 'able' to feel any remorse at all, I think they should be forced to face and acknowledge remorse for their actions. Killing a criminal does not make anyone better and it won't bring the dead back alive so death penalty seems pointless to me.

How can someone who cannot feel remorse have to acknowledge their remorse? That's like saying someone who cannot see the colour blue should go and see what is blue in the world.

[Brazdar]

I meant by that to be put to follow a treatment at a psychiatry hospital.

[Triceratops]

I meant by that to be put to follow a treatment at a psychiatry hospital.

So, you're saying that anyone who doesn't show any signs of guilt or remorse towards their actions should undergo psychiatric treatment?

[AddiEast]

No offense but I think that alot of ppl that are against the death penalty would change their mind if it were a little more personal
Like what would u want to happen to the guy that raped and killed your mother?
The person that molested, torchured and killed your little bro or sister??
Sorry to be so gross but think about it

Do u want that person in jail for the rest of their life? Eating 3 meals a day, watching TV and movies, exercizing, socializing
NOPE I dont
They dont deserve to take up space on this planet
I would want them gone.

[The Batman]

No offense but I think that alot of ppl that are against the death penalty would change their mind if it were a little more personal
Like what would u want to happen to the guy that raped and killed your mother?
The person that molested, torchured and killed your little bro or sister??
Sorry to be so gross but think about it

Do u want that person in jail for the rest of their life? Eating 3 meals a day, watching TV and movies, exercizing, socializing
NOPE I dont
They dont deserve to take up space on this planet
I would want them gone.

The thing is my mom was raped and my sister accused someone of raping her(but it didn't happen), yet I still believe that the Death Penalty isn't right. I want these guys to rot in prison and to not have all of these fucking luxuries that they have. Work on rehabilitation and fixing their problems instead of killing them.

[maeniel]

I see the death penalty as suitable punishment only for those who have taken a life themselves.
If you kill someone, we should kill you back.
Though, I honestly think life in prison is a much worse punishment.
Death Penalty, although deserved, Isn't the worst.
Letting them suffer life in prison sounds much worse than the quicker way out.

[Jenna.]

I think it needs to be used more frequently. Now before you freak out and call me a psycho or something, just hear me out. I think it should be used on murderers and rapists and people like that. Not for something stupid like a robbery or whatever. (Even though that is serious, you know what I mean.)

[Brazdar]

So, you're saying that anyone who doesn't show any signs of guilt or remorse towards their actions should undergo psychiatric treatment?

Well yes, sort of, in a prison's psychiatry wing.

[woody92]

I think it should be used in the most extrem cases coz what is the point of making a family suffer for what the person did (coz remember nearly all of us have family) and yes ok ur punishing the person too but the family get more afected, however if you put them in prison it wont afect the family massively just the person, and if the crime can b sorted out by a comunity order well, i think that is better, coz it doesnt afect the family, it only afects the person who done the crime.:yes::yes:

(sorry if you dont agree but that is MY opinion)
ANYONE can PM me!:yes:

[theOperaGhost]

Thank you for that. But I was actually asking for clarification on what DaTrooper meant when he said "randomly rapes" as opposed to a definition of random rapes.
But while we are here, why do you define pretty much all acquaintance rapes as "random"?

I know the stats, thank you. But I'm still not sure why you are talking about acquaintance rape being "random".
I'm curious, where did you get your claim that many of these victims don't see themselves as victims from? I ask because I know that, through my own experiences and those I have spoken with (on- and off-line), that isn't the case.

So a random guy goes out of his way to abduct and rape someone and never does it again? Lol, trust me, that's not going to happen.

I define "date rape" and "campus rape" as often times random, not all acquaintance rape. Why do I define date rape and even moreso campus rape as "random"? Actually, I guess I can't even say I define date rape as random, because date rape generally involves a guy getting a girl so drunk or drugged up that she can't consent...so take date rape out of there. I still consider campus rape as random though. I see campus rape as both a guy and a girl that are quite drunk. They are probably making out and stuff and it goes too far and they have sex. Neither would have had sex had they been sober. This is technically considered rape even if there is no malicious intent to rape her...things just went farther than either had planned. I consider this to be "random" as in the guy very likely will never maliciously rape any one and will most likely not force someone to have sex with him either.

My source for saying that most victims of acquaintance rape don't see themselves as victims comes from a criminological theory textbook I have. Many times rape may actually take place because the female doesn't give consent, however she doesn't see it as rape. Both parties were probably too drunk to know what they were doing and making out led to sex which they both likely regretted the next day. Once again, this basically deals with campus rape which may or may not be the most common type of acquaintance rape...I don't know that for sure.

[INFERNO]

I see the death penalty as suitable punishment only for those who have taken a life themselves.
If you kill someone, we should kill you back.
Though, I honestly think life in prison is a much worse punishment.
Death Penalty, although deserved, Isn't the worst.
Letting them suffer life in prison sounds much worse than the quicker way out.

I think it needs to be used more frequently. Now before you freak out and call me a psycho or something, just hear me out. I think it should be used on murderers and rapists and people like that. Not for something stupid like a robbery or whatever. (Even though that is serious, you know what I mean.)

This paragraph is in response to both maeniel and Jenxox. But what about the motive, such as manslaughter vs. first-degree murder? Also, what if the intention of the crime initially was not murder but a crime of robbery or perhaps rape?

In response to only maeniel, I'm not entirely sure on what your view is because you seem to be equal for both sides.

Well yes, sort of, in a prison's psychiatry wing.

I agree, treatment in a forensic psychiatric institution or in a maximum-security psychiatric facility.

I think it should be used in the most extrem cases

Define "extreme cases".


coz what is the point of making a family suffer for what the person did (coz remember nearly all of us have family)

You have a point here although you're making the assumption that suppose the culprit has family, the family may not be sympathetic or may hate the culprit for the crimes committed. I think they may also be rather shocked depending on how well they knew the person so your argument has some validity.


however if you put them in prison it wont afect the family massively just the person

Not really. If it's a crime that may be considered to have a sentence of the death penalty, then it's not a petty crime and so the family is likely to be affected regardless of the sentence. The family will have to acknowledge what their family member did and have to face the media and other people regarding it. But what is your argument as to why the family won't be as affected?


and if the crime can b sorted out by a comunity order well, i think that is better, coz it doesnt afect the family, it only afects the person who done the crime.:yes::yes:

For petty crimes or less harmful ones, then I agree but if it's in regard to, say, first-degree murder or aggrevated sexual assault with a deadly weapon, then before the sentence is handed down, the person will have to undergo a risk assessment (not the same as a personality or psychological assessment). If the risk is high, then sentencing them to community commitment is not a good idea. Depending on the motives, the culprit may need psychiatric care, which at least for the initial part, shouldn't be carried out by community commitment.

[woody92]

OK... lets see if i can explain myself a bit better lol:

Originaly posted by INFERNO: You have a point here although you're making the assumption that suppose the culprit has family, the family may not be sympathetic or may hate the culprit for the crimes committed. I think they may also be rather shocked depending on how well they knew the person so your argument has some validity.


ok... if you see i put in brackets (coz remember nearly all of us have family) because, i know most of us have families BUT there are people that dont... (hence the phrase in the brackets)

Originaly posted by INFERNO: Not really. If it's a crime that may be considered to have a sentence of the death penalty, then it's not a petty crime and so the family is likely to be affected regardless of the sentence. The family will have to acknowledge what their family member did and have to face the media and other people regarding it. But what is your argument as to why the family won't be as affected?

I mean if it isn't a petty crime then yes ofcourse it would afect the family, however it would afect them as much. if you use the death penalty then the family would be VERY upset (asuming they have a family) but if they r just put in prison then the family have a choice if they would like to see the person in prison or not.

coz i know that if my dad done something and he could have the death penalty i would rather him be in prison than dead! coz i would still go and see him however serious his crime was! (i know that this varies with every INDIVIDUAL person)!

if it is a petty crime then COMUNITY SERVICE!
if it is First degree murder or mass murder then the death penalty should be considered (IN MY OPINION)

(I would just like to apologise if i have spelt something wrong, or expressed myself wrong i am from the UK but i speak better Spanish than English because i live in Spain:lol::lol:)

[OstrichAficionado]

From a personal point of view, I think death penalty is useless. It doesn't really reduce the crime rates, it only reduces the number of the criminals.

[boy.on.laptop]

I think it should be used on murderers and rapists and people like that. Not for something stupid like a robbery or whatever. (Even though that is serious, you know what I mean.)

When do you define something as 'stupid'? It is something impossible to define whether the death penalty is deserved in rape, murder or manslaughter it is either applicable to all cases or none. Since I believe most people would disagree with the former, the latter is more appropiate and I do not support the death penalty. "He who has done no wrong may cast the first stone"

[Sapphire]

My source for saying that most victims of acquaintance rape don't see themselves as victims comes from a criminological theory textbook I have. Many times rape may actually take place because the female doesn't give consent, however she doesn't see it as rape. Both parties were probably too drunk to know what they were doing and making out led to sex which they both likely regretted the next day. Once again, this basically deals with campus rape which may or may not be the most common type of acquaintance rape...I don't know that for sure.
It amazes me that even here you are still talking about very specific circumstances (both of them being drunk). Not every girl who is raped by someone they know was drunk at the time.
And I am very surprised that you read that in a textbook because everyone that I have spoken with on this has acknowledged that they are/were victims to their abuser.

[INFERNO]

ok... if you see i put in brackets (coz remember nearly all of us have family) because, i know most of us have families BUT there are people that dont... (hence the phrase in the brackets)

If you say most families, then it implies some people don't have families and so the brackets become redundant.


I mean if it isn't a petty crime then yes ofcourse it would afect the family, however it would afect them as much. if you use the death penalty then the family would be VERY upset (asuming they have a family) but if they r just put in prison then the family have a choice if they would like to see the person in prison or not.

... . So you're asserting that the death penalty is not sentenced by law but rather by asking the individual's family? That's not how it works, not in the past nor present. If you think otherwise, then provide credible sources along with an argument as the burden of proof is on you.


coz i know that if my dad done something and he could have the death penalty i would rather him be in prison than dead! coz i would still go and see him however serious his crime was! (i know that this varies with every INDIVIDUAL person)!

Did the law officials ask you and your family if you wanted your father to undergo the death penalty and that they'd carry out the wish of your family and yourself?


if it is a petty crime then COMUNITY SERVICE!

Why only community service?


if it is First degree murder or mass murder then the death penalty should be considered (IN MY OPINION)

What about serial murder and spree murder? What about second-degree murder and manslaughter? What about if aggrevated sexual assault took place (or some other crime) along with murder or manslaughter?

[woody92]

ok...
well clearly i have not expressed myself right or u dont understand IFERNO or u might NEVER b satisfied with my comments (i take everything u say in to acount but i am not expressing my self well enough)
I think the death penalty should b used...
but when the crime is really bad!
i dont agree with it being used to prove a point nor do i like the fact that it could be used for a crime that could be sorted out better

and ok ALL MURDER should be considered with the death penalty
INFERNO if you have any more questions please send me a PM!
thank you!

[Perseus]

So a random guy goes out of his way to abduct and rape someone and never does it again? Lol, trust me, that's not going to happen.

I'm just giving an example of someone who shouldn't be put to death for rape because thinks that all rapists should get the death sentence, which I just think is ridiculous.

[theOperaGhost]

It amazes me that even here you are still talking about very specific circumstances (both of them being drunk). Not every girl who is raped by someone they know was drunk at the time.
And I am very surprised that you read that in a textbook because everyone that I have spoken with on this has acknowledged that they are/were victims to their abuser.

The very specific circumstances I'm talking about (campus rape) is one of the most common type of rape that takes place and often times neither the victim nor the perpetrator know it took place.

And why are you surprised of what my text book says? Have you talked to every rape victim in the world? Have you talked to anyone who has been a victim of campus rape?

[INFERNO]

I think the death penalty should b used...
but when the crime is really bad!

How do you define a crime to be "really bad"?


i dont agree with it being used to prove a point nor do i like the fact that it could be used for a crime that could be sorted out better

In that case, life in prison is another option but do you think life in prison deals with the criminal better than the death penalty?


and ok ALL MURDER should be considered with the death penalty

Even manslaughter? It seems rather unfair to treat one person who was goofing around or accidentally shot someone the same way as you would for a serial murderer. The motives and numerous other factors are different, and yet the consequence is the same. Sound fair?

It's just like saying that if someone steals from a store, regardless if it's $5 in trading cards or $5,000 dollars in merchandise and money from the till/cashier, then both get the same sentence. Sound fair?


INFERNO if you have any more questions please send me a PM!
thank you!

Seeing as how this is a debate that is within the forums and seeing as how you and I are not the only ones contributing, then no. I'll PM you when there's a personal matter or a matter that is inappropriate for the current debate.

[woody92]

ok... INFERNO

this is what i think:

the death penalty (in my opinion) should be used:
- Murder
- mass murder
- (not manslauter- only in some cases)
- ETC...

The death penalty (in my opinion) should NOT be used: (this was not here before INFERNO)
when i say "realy bad crime" i mean:
- ROBBERY...
- KIDNAP (ALTHOUGH I THINK THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT)
- GBH...
- AND SO ON...

ok now:
originally posted by INFERNO:
In that case, life in prison is another option but do you think life in prison deals with the criminal better than the death penalty?


yea, why? well because in prison they can give that person specialized help (example: counceling, etc...)

originally posted by INFERNO:
Even manslaughter? It seems rather unfair to treat one person who was goofing around or accidentally shot someone the same way as you would for a serial murderer. The motives and numerous other factors are different, and yet the consequence is the same. Sound fair?

It's just like saying that if someone steals from a store, regardless if it's $5 in trading cards or $5,000 dollars in merchandise and money from the till/cashier, then both get the same sentence. Sound fair?

:thumbsup:ok manslaughter is different yes ok, i will give u that. that can be sorted out with counceling, etc... (IN MY OPINION!)


originally posted by INFERNO:
Seeing as how this is a debate that is within the forums and seeing as how you and I are not the only ones contributing, then no. I'll PM you when there's a personal matter or a matter that is inappropriate for the current debate.

OK thats fine with me (oh and i will say it again SORRY IF I DONT EXPLAIN MYSELF RIGHT):thumbsup:

[Contra]

In my opinion, in extreme cases may be applied.

[Sapphire]

The very specific circumstances I'm talking about (campus rape) is one of the most common type of rape that takes place and often times neither the victim nor the perpetrator know it took place.How can neither know it took place?
Rape is illegal because one party doesn't consent to the act of sex and the other party is aware of this lack of consent at the time. If they are both drunk (but not so drunk that they are passing out etc), both consent at the time (regardless of what they would have done while sober) and both believe the other has given consent then it can't be rape.
At least not under current UK law.
Regret over a drunken fling doesn't classify something as rape.

The majority of rapes (over 70%) are committed by someone already know to the victim.
It has been found that the most common perpetrators are husbands and partners (Painter, 1991). http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/law/statistics.html

So, I ask again, why are you talking about a very specific situation which seems to rely heavily on one of them regretting a drunken fling without being so drunk that they were passing out etc?


And why are you surprised of what my text book says? Have you talked to every rape victim in the world? Have you talked to anyone who has been a victim of campus rape?
I am surprised because I am on a forum specifically for rape survivors and all of them acknowledge that they are/were victims. These are people who have been victimised by strangers, partners, friends and family members.

[Perseus]

ok... INFERNO

this is what i think:

the death penalty (in my opinion) should be used:
when i say "realy bad crime" i mean:
- ROBBERY...
- KIDNAP (ALTHOUGH I THINK THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT)
- GBH...
- AND SO ON...


I have a question for you, Woody. Why do you think someone who commits robbery, any kind from what I can gather by you just saying "ROBBERY", deserves the death penalty?

[woody92]

I have a question for you, Woody. Why do you think someone who commits robbery, any kind from what I can gather by you just saying "ROBBERY", deserves the death penalty?


YEA sorry i would just like to say sorry i wrote it wrong i did not mean for robbery should deserve the death penalty nor GBH, ABH etc...

sorry DaTrooper00 it was a typing error!:( I have changed my post now SORRY!!

[theOperaGhost]

How can neither know it took place?
Rape is illegal because one party doesn't consent to the act of sex and the other party is aware of this lack of consent at the time. If they are both drunk (but not so drunk that they are passing out etc), both consent at the time (regardless of what they would have done while sober) and both believe the other has given consent then it can't be rape.
At least not under current UK law.
Regret over a drunken fling doesn't classify something as rape.

The majority of rapes (over 70%) are committed by someone already know to the victim.
It has been found that the most common perpetrators are husbands and partners (Painter, 1991). http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/law/statistics.html

So, I ask again, why are you talking about a very specific situation which seems to rely heavily on one of them regretting a drunken fling without being so drunk that they were passing out etc?


I am surprised because I am on a forum specifically for rape survivors and all of them acknowledge that they are/were victims. These are people who have been victimised by strangers, partners, friends and family members.

So you're saying you remember everything that happens when you are drunk? I don't remember everything that takes place when I'm drunk.

And you are on a forum SPECIFICALLY FOR RAPE SURVIVORS! If they are on that forum, do you really think they are NOT going acknowledge that they are rape victims? I don't think there are going to be any rape victims that don't acknowledge they were raped on a rape survivors forum. Your point is moot.

[Perseus]

YEA sorry i would just like to say sorry i wrote it wrong i did not mean for robbery should deserve the death penalty nor GBH, ABH etc...

sorry DaTrooper00 it was a typing error!:( I have changed my post now SORRY!!

Lol, it's okay...

[maestro15]

The death panel costs a lot!! Many innocent people have been killed!, if lethal injection wasn't inserted correctly.... oy!!

[Sapphire]

So you're saying you remember everything that happens when you are drunk? I don't remember everything that takes place when I'm drunk.That is not what I'm saying, and you know it.
What you remember the morning after and what you are capable of consenting to at the time are very different. Just because someone has sex when drunk with a person they normally wouldn't doesn't mean that they are being raped.
As I have said before, rape is the act of unconsensual sex and this lack of consent has to be clearly communicated. Of course this is assuming that the victim isn't so drunk that they are passing out, asleep or hindered in their understanding or ability to say no because of a disability.
Simply being drunk and regretting it the morning after doesn't qualify.

And you are on a forum SPECIFICALLY FOR RAPE SURVIVORS! If they are on that forum, do you really think they are NOT going acknowledge that they are rape victims? I don't think there are going to be any rape victims that don't acknowledge they were raped on a rape survivors forum. Your point is moot.
My point is that I am surprised by what your textbook said and I gave reasons as to why it surprised me.

When 80% of campus rape victims suffer for years afterward, 25-50% seek mental health treatment because of it, 80% tried to physically fight back and that less than 50% of those who experience this specific type of acquaintance rape deny their "victim" status, it is hard to believe that "most victims of acquaintance rape don't see themselves as victims".
And btw, 71% of them are planned - hardly a "random" attack...
http://aauw.org/advocacy/laf/lafnetwork/library/assault_stats.cfm

[INFERNO]

the death penalty (in my opinion) should be used:
- Murder
- mass murder
- (not manslauter- only in some cases)
- ETC...
when i say "realy bad crime" i mean:
- ROBBERY...
- KIDNAP (ALTHOUGH I THINK THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT)
- GBH...
- AND SO ON...

What's GBH? I'm not understanding why kidnap is on that list. Certainly if someone murders the kidnaped person then fine, however, kidnap alone doesn't make sense to me for it to be on there.

In my opinion, in extreme cases may be applied.

I might as well just have this in my copy and paste feature: what do you define "extreme cases" to be?

if lethal injection wasn't inserted correctly.... oy!!

Is that an argument you're willing to use?

[woody92]

What's GBH? I'm not understanding why kidnap is on that list. Certainly if someone murders the kidnaped person then fine, however, kidnap alone doesn't make sense to me for it to be on there.

ok GBH is Grievous bodily harm and (read one of the posts that i wrote before, for the rest of your answers as i am going to edit it again it is below)
:D:D

[QUOTE=woody92;720528]ok... INFERNO

this is what i think:

the death penalty (in my opinion) should be used:
- Murder
- mass murder
- (not manslauter- only in some cases)
- ETC...

The death penalty (in my opinion) should NOT be used:
when i say "realy bad crime" i mean:
- ROBBERY...
- KIDNAP (ALTHOUGH I THINK THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT)
- GBH...
- AND SO ON...

ok now:


yea, why? well because in prison they can give that person specialized help (example: counceling, etc...)



:thumbsup:ok manslaughter is different yes ok, i will give u that. that can be sorted out with counceling, etc... (IN MY OPINION!)




OK thats fine with me (oh and i will say it again SORRY IF I DONT EXPLAIN MYSELF RIGHT):thumbsup:

[The Joker]

YEA sorry i would just like to say sorry i wrote it wrong i did not mean for robbery should deserve the death penalty nor GBH, ABH etc...

sorry DaTrooper00 it was a typing error!:( I have changed my post now SORRY!!

Some bank robbers should face it.

I've heard of ones that have terrorized people for hours with gun that shouldn't be easy to legally obtain, and attempt to murder many people for money.

[Triceratops]

Well yes, sort of, in a prison's psychiatry wing.

Assuming this is to keep the criminal confined and locked away from others, just in case of another repeated attempt of rape, murder or any other act of violence - due to their lack of remorse. Perhaps if they are truly mentally ill; if their misunderstanding of what's right and wrong motivates them to perform such crimes, they would be institutionalized anyway.

In other words, I agree with you.

[INFERNO]

ok GBH is Grievous bodily harm and (read one of the posts that i wrote before, for the rest of your answers as i am going to edit it again it is below)
:D:D

You didn't answer the question of why kidnapping is on your list both before and in the most recently updated list. I looked through the entire thread and found no explanation so care to explain it now?

[woody92]

You didn't answer the question of why kidnapping is on your list both before and in the most recently updated list. I looked through the entire thread and found no explanation so care to explain it now?
ok...
if you see above "kidnapping" i have put "The death penalty (in my opinion) should NOT be used:" this in between what i consider what should have the death penalty and what shouldnt. because before i changed the post it did NOT have this phrase (that is where i did not make my self clear) i will now go back to the post and change what i added (the phrase above in red) i will change to red so you can see it better (sorry again for the confusion!).

[INFERNO]

ok...
if you see above "kidnapping" i have put "The death penalty (in my opinion) should NOT be used:" this in between what i consider what should have the death penalty and what shouldnt. because before i changed the post it did NOT have this phrase (that is where i did not make my self clear) i will now go back to the post and change what i added (the phrase above in red) i will change to red so you can see it better (sorry again for the confusion!).

Much of this debate is based on opinion so telling me that your argument is based on your opinion is redundant and meaningless. So, I'll ask again, what is your reasoning?

[woody92]

Much of this debate is based on opinion so telling me that your argument is based on your opinion is redundant and meaningless. So, I'll ask again, what is your reasoning?

Ok... the death penalty should be considered for kidnapping. Because it can a mental affect on the person and the persons family (I am not saying that the rest don’t but I consider kidnapping a more serious form of mental damage).

AND if I feel comfortable in saying “IN MY OPINION” I WILL!
So don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t say coz I don’t care!
(NO HARD FEELING [AT LEAST FROM MY SIDE]):D

[Fusion]

In my opinion, in extreme cases may be applied.

I have to agree with this!

[INFERNO]

Ok... the death penalty should be considered for kidnapping. Because it can a mental affect on the person and the persons family (I am not saying that the rest don’t but I consider kidnapping a more serious form of mental damage).

True, however, the same applies to if someone is held at knife point, so would that be considered allowable for the death penalty?


AND if I feel comfortable in saying “IN MY OPINION” I WILL!So don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t say coz I don’t care!(NO HARD FEELING [AT LEAST FROM MY SIDE]):D

If it makes you feel comfortable, then go ahead with it. However, you do care about it otherwise you wouldn't openly refute it and continue to say it. :yes:

I have to agree with this!

Do you happen to agree with the same definition of "extreme cases" which the individual who you are quoting did not provide?

[woody92]

True, however, the same applies to if someone is held at knife point, so would that be considered allowable for the death penalty?



If it makes you feel comfortable, then go ahead with it. However, you do care about it otherwise you wouldn't openly refute it and continue to say it. :yes:



Do you happen to agree with the same definition of "extreme cases" which the individual who you are quoting did not provide?

ok... no because although being held aat knife point is traumatic it is not as traumatic as kiddnap (in my opinion).

it does make me feel more comfortable, yes so i will carry on saying it.

[Sapphire]

Being a victim of crime in general has an effect on people emotionally. Hence the existence of Victim Support and similar organisations.
So to say that a particular group of crimes should be considered as being punishable by death because they have a negative emotional effect on the victim is rather dismissive and only half thought through.

[INFERNO]

ok... no because although being held aat knife point is traumatic it is not as traumatic as kiddnap


The thing is though, when you say kidnap is more traumatic than being held at knife point, your argument is weak for several reasons. First, you haven't provided a specific criteria for the crime to meet to be considered traumatic enough to lead to the death penalty. Second, different people can cope differently for the same event, so one person can be very traumatized while the other won't be anywhere near as much. Third, you're excluding or discriminating other crimes because they're not traumatic enough. Fourth, pretty much all crimes are traumatizing and so you're ignoring ones that aren't traumatizing enough to meet your specific criteria. This not only downplays the victims and the crimes, but it also downplays the organizations and attempts set forth that are intended to help the victims.

[woody92]

The thing is though, when you say kidnap is more traumatic than being held at knife point, your argument is weak for several reasons. First, you haven't provided a specific criteria for the crime to meet to be considered traumatic enough to lead to the death penalty. Second, different people can cope differently for the same event, so one person can be very traumatized while the other won't be anywhere near as much. Third, you're excluding or discriminating other crimes because they're not traumatic enough. Fourth, pretty much all crimes are traumatizing and so you're ignoring ones that aren't traumatizing enough to meet your specific criteria. This not only downplays the victims and the crimes, but it also downplays the organizations and attempts set forth that are intended to help the victims.



1st: I beleive I have given a persific criteria for the crime.
2nd: I know different people act differently to different crimes!
3rd and 4th: I am not ignoring crimes that are traumatizing, i just said KIDDNAP as an example ofcorse there are some crimes that are VERRY VERRY VERRY much more traumatizing, oviously most crimes are taumatic to differnt types of people.

What crime to you are MOST TRAUMATIC?
Can you give a persific criteria as to why KIDNAP is traumatic?

[INFERNO]

1st: I beleive I have given a persific criteria for the crime.

No you haven't. The only criteria you gave was that the victim is traumatized, which applies to all crimes. Other than that, there's been no criteria given.


What crime to you are MOST TRAUMATIC?

I would say either a sexual one, such as rape or molestation, as well as torture or immense physical abuse. For rape, the stats I'm taking are from Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E., Veronen, L.J., Best, C.L. & Von, J.M. (1987). Criminal victimization: Lifetime prevalence, reporting to police, and psychological impact. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 479-489 as well as Cortina, L.M. & Kubiak, S.P. (2006). Gender and posttraumatic stress: Sexual violence as an explanation for women's increased risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 753-759.

According to the first source, female rape victims after 1 month, 65% have PTSD; after 9 months, 47% have PTSD; and after 15 years, 16.5% have PTSD. The second source has slightly higher stats.

I say that torture and such is also very traumatic as witnessed and explained by Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire's accounts and his contribution to PTSD being recognized by the Canadian federal government in 2000.

I think it's traumatic regardless of the victim's age but childhood victims are especially traumatized.


Can you give a persific criteria as to why KIDNAP is traumatic?

You were the one who asserted kidnap was traumatic and have not explained the criteria for a crime being traumatizing enough to be given the death sentence. Burden of proof is still on you, not on me. If I give my answer, then I've just provided an argument for your side and am contributing to my side, in which case I might as well just talk to myself.

[woody92]

No you haven't. The only criteria you gave was that the victim is traumatized, which applies to all crimes. Other than that, there's been no criteria given.



I would say either a sexual one, such as rape or molestation, as well as torture or immense physical abuse. For rape, the stats I'm taking are from Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E., Veronen, L.J., Best, C.L. & Von, J.M. (1987). Criminal victimization: Lifetime prevalence, reporting to police, and psychological impact. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 479-489 as well as Cortina, L.M. & Kubiak, S.P. (2006). Gender and posttraumatic stress: Sexual violence as an explanation for women's increased risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 753-759.

According to the first source, female rape victims after 1 month, 65% have PTSD; after 9 months, 47% have PTSD; and after 15 years, 16.5% have PTSD. The second source has slightly higher stats.

I say that torture and such is also very traumatic as witnessed and explained by Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire's accounts and his contribution to PTSD being recognized by the Canadian federal government in 2000.

I think it's traumatic regardless of the victim's age but childhood victims are especially traumatized.


ok... The lifetime frequency of PTSD and MDD were 45·9% and 37·5% respectively. The Stockholm syndrome had been present in 50% of the sample during captivity. The presence of PTSD can be predicted by the number of violent experiences, whereas the number of humiliating or deprivation experiences predicts the development of the Stockholm syndrome. Subjects with both PTSD and the Stockholm syndrome reported a greater number of physical complaints at the interview.

kidnapp is something that will stay with the individual for their whole life, as they can become more paranoide, Jumppy, confused, scared, short tempered.... and most of all have NO SELF CONFIDENCE!
(I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS DOES NOT HAVE AN AFFECT AFTER OTHER CRIMES ASWELL)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, INFERNO AND ALL VTer's!!!!!

is that to your standards?

[Sapphire]

I'm confused as to what woody92 is using to distinguish crimes that should be punishable by death and those that should not.
You (woody) have acknowledged that kidnapping is not the only crime that causes people to become paranoid, lose self confidence etc. In fact rape and other sexual crimes commonly result in the same effects - and more - yet they were completely absent from both of your lists.
So, please clarify your points and the reasons behind them.

[woody92]

I'm confused as to what woody92 is using to distinguish crimes that should be punishable by death and those that should not.
You (woody) have acknowledged that kidnapping is not the only crime that causes people to become paranoid, lose self confidence etc. In fact rape and other sexual crimes commonly result in the same effects - and more - yet they were completely absent from both of your lists.
So, please clarify your points and the reasons behind them.

I think the death penalty is more of a deterrent that helps to prevent people to do some types of crime, such as kidnapping, rape, etc.
For example executed murderers cannot harm or murder again. The reason behind this is, that living murderers are more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers (for reasons quite obvious).
My reasons are stated below in red, why I think the death penalty should and should not be used.

The crimes that I think should be punishable by the death penalty are:

· Drug Distribution / Trafficking (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/drug_distribution_trafficking.html) (ONLY ON A MASS SCALE Example 2+ tones supplied to the public.). Because it is thanks to these people and the people whom cultivate the drugs, that cause all the young people nowadays to die of drug overdoses (not including the prescribed drug overdoses).
· Kidnapping (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/kidnapping.html)(SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ESPECIALY IF THE PERSON KIDNAPPED IS A CHILD). Because this can have a huge affect on the persons mental health and well being (this can be even more traumatizing for a child, as the child is away from a recognizable adult, such as a parent or a grandparent, etc. Although we are hearing about uncles and aunts also kidnapping family members). Yes, I know that other crimes also have the same affects and more!
· Murder: First-degree (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html). This should be used in my opinion, because the person who committed the murder has had a plot, in a period of time, and therefore knows what his/her objectives are well in hand before committing the crime/murder.
· Rape (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html)(CHEMICAL CASTRATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED). I think that chemical castration shoud be used, so that, that persons hormones (for sex) can calm down, because, in my view, to be able to commit such an offence, the rapist has to have a great deal of sexual hormones. Chemical castration, would calm such hormones.
· Sexual Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/sexual_assault.html)(I don’t think death should be used, but I do think chemical castration should be used). For the same reasons as above.

The crimes that I think should NOT be punishable by the death penalty are:

· Arson (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/arson.html).
· Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html).
· Burglary (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/burglary.html).
· Child Abuse (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/child_abuse.html).
· Child Pornography (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/child_pornography.html).
· Computer Crime (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/computer_crime.html).
· Conspiracy (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html).
· Credit / Debit Card Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/credit_card_fraud.html).
· Disorderly Conduct (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/disorderly_conduct.html).
· Domestic Violence (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/domestic_violence.html).
· Drug Possession (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/drug_possession.html).
· DUI / DWI (http://dui.findlaw.com/) (driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated).
· Robbery (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/robbery.html).
· Stalking (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/stalking.html).
· Tax Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/tax_evasion.html).
· Telemarketing Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/telemarketing_fraud.html).
· Theft (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/theft_larceny.html).
· + More……

In my view all the above crimes are not serious enough for such a punishment like the death penalty, and therefore I believe that they can be punished using other methods, like: fines, community service or a period of time in prison.
Because, for example, DUI, this is a traffic offence, so unless the drunk driver kills someone, then I do not believe that he should get the death sentence, however I also don’t think that a drunk driver, if he/she kills someone, should deserve the death penalty, but I believe they should go to prison for a period of time.

[Sapphire]

I think the death penalty is more of a deterrent that helps to prevent people to do some types of crime, such as kidnapping, rape, etc.
For example executed murderers cannot harm or murder again. The reason behind this is, that living murderers are more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers (for reasons quite obvious).It has actually been seen that capital punishment doesn't deter such crimes
Actually, murder rates in countries/States with the death penalty are no lower than murder rates in countries/States without the death penalty.
In fact, some studies show that the reverse is true and that the amount of murders are actually higher in the US States which have the death penalty.
See this (http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085%5B/URL)
And this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)
While this study shows (http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol58/issue3/donohue.pdf) that Canada have - since it abolished the death penalty - had consistently lower murder rates than the States, whereas before their murder stats were higher than the USA's. It also illustrates the lower murder rates in US States which didn't have the death penalty at all (from 1960 onwards) than in those who had. There has been a decrease in recent years to these rates but that evidently isn't down to the death penalty.
This page (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440332004?open&of=ENG-2AF) shows that the USA has a higher rate of murder per 100,000 people than a number of European countries who do not have the death penalty. It also quotes a study into murder and executions in Nigeria between 1967 and 1985 which concluded that the death penalty most definitely did not deter criminality as murder rates had actually risen during this period.

It clearly isn't a deterrent.

My reasons are stated below in red, why I think the death penalty should and should not be used.

The crimes that I think should be punishable by the death penalty are:
· Drug Distribution / Trafficking (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/drug_distribution_trafficking.html) (ONLY ON A MASS SCALE Example 2+ tones supplied to the public.). Because it is thanks to these people and the people whom cultivate the drugs, that cause all the young people nowadays to die of drug overdoses (not including the prescribed drug overdoses).
· Kidnapping (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/kidnapping.html)(SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ESPECIALY IF THE PERSON KIDNAPPED IS A CHILD). Because this can have a huge affect on the persons mental health and well being (this can be even more traumatizing for a child, as the child is away from a recognizable adult, such as a parent or a grandparent, etc. Although we are hearing about uncles and aunts also kidnapping family members). Yes, I know that other crimes also have the same affects and more!
· Murder: First-degree (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html). This should be used in my opinion, because the person who committed the murder has had a plot, in a period of time, and therefore knows what his/her objectives are well in hand before committing the crime/murder.
· Rape (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html)(CHEMICAL CASTRATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED). I think that chemical castration shoud be used, so that, that persons hormones (for sex) can calm down, because, in my view, to be able to commit such an offence, the rapist has to have a great deal of sexual hormones. Chemical castration, would calm such hormones.
· Sexual Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/sexual_assault.html)(I don’t think death should be used, but I do think chemical castration should be used). For the same reasons as above.
The crimes that I think should NOT be punishable by the death penalty are:
· Arson (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/arson.html).
· Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html).
· Burglary (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/burglary.html).
· Child Abuse (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/child_abuse.html).
· Child Pornography (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/child_pornography.html).
· Computer Crime (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/computer_crime.html).
· Conspiracy (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html).
· Credit / Debit Card Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/credit_card_fraud.html).
· Disorderly Conduct (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/disorderly_conduct.html).
· Domestic Violence (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/domestic_violence.html).
· Drug Possession (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/drug_possession.html).
· DUI / DWI (http://dui.findlaw.com/) (driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated).
· Robbery (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/robbery.html).
· Sexual Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/sexual_assault.html).
· Stalking (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/stalking.html).
· Tax Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/tax_evasion.html).
· Telemarketing Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/telemarketing_fraud.html).
· Theft (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/theft_larceny.html).
· + More……
In my view all the above crimes are not serious enough for such a punishment like the death penalty, and therefore I believe that they can be punished using other methods, like: fines, community service or a period of time in prison.
Because, for example, DUI, this is a traffic offence, so unless the drunk driver kills someone, then I do not believe that he should get the death sentence, however I also don’t think that a drunk driver, if he/she kills someone, should deserve the death penalty, but I believe they should go to prison for a period of time.So you believe that kidnapping someone is worse than domestic abuse, child abuse and child pornography? And that it should be punishable by death (on account of the effects it can have on the victim) but that domestic abuse, child abuse and child pornography shouldn't be (even though the effects are the same, if not greater)?

Your reasoning isn't consistent.

[woody92]

So you believe that kidnapping someone is worse than domestic abuse, child abuse and child pornography? And that it should be punishable by death (on account of the effects it can have on the victim) but that domestic abuse, child abuse and child pornography shouldn't be (even though the effects are the same, if not greater)?

Your reasoning isn't consistent.

well i think thatchild abuse and pornography are really bad crimes, and i think they should have consecueses like chemicel castration. I just want to make it clear that i HATE child abuse and pornogrphy, however i cant see them ever having the death sentence.

[Sapphire]

well i think thatchild abuse and pornography are really bad crimes, and i think they should have consecueses like chemicel castration. I just want to make it clear that i HATE child abuse and pornogrphy, however i cant see them ever having the death sentence.
But the effects they have are devastating - comparable to kidnapping and in fact worse in some cases - so, why is it that you say they shouldn't be punishable by death but kidnapping should be?

[woody92]

But the effects they have are devastating - comparable to kidnapping and in fact worse in some cases - so, why is it that you say they shouldn't be punishable by death but kidnapping should be?

Ok they should, but they NEVER will have it, I am being realistic. Personaly I think that it should have the death penalty, but it never will! I myself dont really understand why, but I think it is because there are too many pedofiles and now they cant sentance them all to death, so most the comunities in the world, would like them to face death (in my opinion) but they are too late! Therefor it has gotten WAY out of control!

In my opinion the goverments of the world SHOULD put an end to it, but they just simply cant!

[Sapphire]

Ok they should, but they NEVER will have it, I am being realistic. Personaly I think that it should have the death penalty, but it never will! I myself dont really understand why, but I think it is because there are too many pedofiles and now they cant sentance them all to death, so most the comunities in the world, would like them to face death (in my opinion) but they are too late! Therefor it has gotten WAY out of control!

In my opinion the goverments of the world SHOULD put an end to it, but they just simply cant!But why should they enforce capital punishment for these crimes?

Btw, kidnapping isn't punishable by death either - so if you are being realistic in your arguments, why are you saying that kidnapping should be?
A number of cases of kidnapping actually occur in the course of unfair custody battles - why should this type of case be punishable by death? What makes that so much worse than systematically beating a child?

You have obviously only partially thought this through.

And where's your evidence that most of the global communities are pro-capital punishment?

[INFERNO]

ok... The lifetime frequency of PTSD and MDD were 45·9% and 37·5% respectively. The Stockholm syndrome had been present in 50% of the sample during captivity. The presence of PTSD can be predicted by the number of violent experiences, whereas the number of humiliating or deprivation experiences predicts the development of the Stockholm syndrome. Subjects with both PTSD and the Stockholm syndrome reported a greater number of physical complaints at the interview.

What's your source(s) for this?


kidnapp is something that will stay with the individual for their whole life, as they can become more paranoide, Jumppy, confused, scared, short tempered.... and most of all have NO SELF CONFIDENCE!
(I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS DOES NOT HAVE AN AFFECT AFTER OTHER CRIMES ASWELL)

You're right, these symptoms do occur as a result of other crimes so I'm not seeing how you're distinguishing and what your criteria still are.



I think the death penalty is more of a deterrent that helps to prevent people to do some types of crime, such as kidnapping, rape, etc.

True, it can act as a deterrent.


For example executed murderers cannot harm or murder again. The reason behind this is, that living murderers are more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers (for reasons quite obvious).

Well... yes, that's true :lol:.


Drug Distribution / Trafficking[/URL] (ONLY ON A MASS SCALE Example 2+ tones supplied to the public.). Because it is thanks to these people and the people whom cultivate the drugs, that cause all the young people nowadays to die of drug overdoses (not including the prescribed drug overdoses).

The drug dealers aren't the ones getting the people to overdose, they merely supply the drugs (which depending what is supplied is illegal). The people are the ones overdosing, so I think it's unfair to blame the drug dealers for that. It's like me saying that I bought a clothing iron and accidentally burnt my hand. That is my fault, I cannot go to the manufacturer and say that since the iron burned me, it's their fault.


· Kidnapping (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/kidnapping.html) (SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ESPECIALY IF THE PERSON KIDNAPPED IS A CHILD). Because this can have a huge affect on the persons mental health and well being (this can be even more traumatizing for a child, as the child is away from a recognizable adult, such as a parent or a grandparent, etc. Although we are hearing about uncles and aunts also kidnapping family members). Yes, I know that other crimes also have the same affects and more!

This has the same problem as the other posts you provided of not having a distinguishable criteria for the death penalty based on the traumatizing effects the victim(s) had. Another problem is people kidnap for different reasons and so my question to you is do you think the reasons should be considered? Take situation A: two parents are divorced and one has the child and is being cruel, unfair and so forth to the child. As a result, the other parent kidnaps the child to protect it. Applying your reasoning, the other parent should be given the death sentence and only trauamtize the child even more. Situation B: an opportunistic child molester and/or pedophilia kidnaps the child and performs sexual acts to him/her. Do you think the two situations deserve different consequences or should they both be given the same and why?


· Murder: First-degree (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html). This should be used in my opinion, because the person who committed the murder has had a plot, in a period of time, and therefore knows what his/her objectives are well in hand before committing the crime/murder.

Even though I'm against the death penalty in general, this is a situation I'd be more willing to accept, although I'm still partially against it due to plausible alternatives.


· Rape (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html) (CHEMICAL CASTRATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED). I think that chemical castration shoud be used, so that, that persons hormones (for sex) can calm down, because, in my view, to be able to commit such an offence, the rapist has to have a great deal of sexual hormones. Chemical castration, would calm such hormones.

Interesting point you bring up. I did a research paper for pedophiles for my course in forensic psychology and chemical castration was a method that sometimes is still used for certain pedophiles. One surprising result I found was approx. 1/3 of chemically castrated individuals can still engage in sexual intercourse. It's also a pretty expensive option costing the country $5000-20,000 per year. From Guay, David R.P. (2009). Drug Treatment of Paraphilic and Nonparaphilic Sexual Disorders. Clinical Therapeutics, 31, 1-31. I think it's a good option though in theory but in practice, if ~30% can still engage, then it doesn't seem that effective. If applied to rapists also, assuming the ~30% still occurs, there will still be thousands of rapists still going at it.


· Sexual Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/sexual_assault.html) (I don’t think death should be used, but I do think chemical castration should be used). For the same reasons as above.

Same reasoning as above; good in theory, bad in practice.


The crimes that I think should NOT be punishable by the death penalty are:
· Arson (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/arson.html).
· Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html).
· Burglary (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/burglary.html).
· Child Abuse (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/child_abuse.html).
· Child Pornography (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/child_pornography.html).
· Computer Crime (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/computer_crime.html).
· Conspiracy (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html).
· Credit / Debit Card Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/credit_card_fraud.html).
· Disorderly Conduct (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/disorderly_conduct.html).
· Domestic Violence (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/domestic_violence.html).
· Drug Possession (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/drug_possession.html).
· DUI / DWI (http://dui.findlaw.com/) (driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated).
· Robbery (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/robbery.html).
· Sexual Assault (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/sexual_assault.html).
· Stalking (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/stalking.html).
· Tax Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/tax_evasion.html).
· Telemarketing Fraud (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/telemarketing_fraud.html).
· Theft (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/theft_larceny.html).
· + More……
In my view all the above crimes are not serious enough for such a punishment like the death penalty, and therefore I believe that they can be punished using other methods, like: fines, community service or a period of time in prison.


Above you supported the death penalty for sexual assault and drug trafficking and in this list you don't. Which is it?

well i think thatchild abuse and pornography are really bad crimes, and i think they should have consecueses like chemicel castration. I just want to make it clear that i HATE child abuse and pornogrphy, however i cant see them ever having the death sentence.

A better option because chemical castration isn't very effective is to use certain psychopharamcological agents.

Ok they should, but they NEVER will have it, I am being realistic. Personaly I think that it should have the death penalty, but it never will! I myself dont really understand why, but I think it is because there are too many pedofiles and now they cant sentance them all to death, so most the comunities in the world, would like them to face death (in my opinion) but they are too late! Therefor it has gotten WAY out of control!

In my opinion the goverments of the world SHOULD put an end to it, but they just simply cant!

Huh? According to you there's too many to sentence to death but they should still be sentenced to death yet you don't think it will happen so you're against it. So do you support it or not because it's scrambled what you wrote above?

[woody92]

But why should they enforce capital punishment for these crimes?
Because they aren’t serious enough crimes for me to consider them to be able to have the death penalty (SIMPLE AS THAT)

Btw, kidnapping isn't punishable by death either - so if you are being realistic in your arguments, why are you saying that kidnapping should be?
Ok, well I thought it was. So I would rather that it was punishable by the death sentence. Sorry.

]A number of cases of kidnapping actually occur in the course of unfair custody battles - why should this type of case be punishable by death?
Ok these cases are more difficult to punish, I don’t think they should be punishable like this. Before I was only talking in general KIDNAPPING.

What makes that so much worse than systematically beating a child?
I think this is bad as well. But, in my view, it is punishable by other methods of punishment.

And where's your evidence that most of the global communities are pro-capital punishment?
Well this is my observation that they are pro-capital punishment.
_________________________________________________________________________


What's your source(s) for this?

Cambridge University (United Kingdom)


The drug dealers aren't the ones getting the people to overdose, they merely supply the drugs (which depending what is supplied is illegal). The people are the ones overdosing, so I think it's unfair to blame the drug dealers for that. It's like me saying that I bought a clothing iron and accidentally burnt my hand. That is my fault, I cannot go to the manufacturer and say that since the iron burned me, it's their fault.
YES, you’re right. However, I dont think it is unfair to blame the drug dealers, because I believe that it is their responsibility to face the consequences for the fact that the drugs can be on the streets, suplied by them.


This has the same problem as the other posts you provided of not having a distinguishable criteria for the death penalty based on the traumatizing effects the victim(s) had. Another problem is people kidnap for different reasons and so my question to you is do you think the reasons should be considered? Take situation A: two parents are divorced and one has the child and is being cruel, unfair and so forth to the child. As a result, the other parent kidnaps the child to protect it. Applying your reasoning, the other parent should be given the death sentence and only trauamtize the child even more. Situation B: an opportunistic child molester and/or pedophilia kidnaps the child and performs sexual acts to him/her. Do you think the two situations deserve different consequences or should they both be given the same and why?
Yes I do, because there is a difference between the family members kidnapping a person, than a complete utter stranger. This in my opinion is because at least the kidnapped person recognizes the person/persons that have kidnapped them.


Interesting point you bring up. I did a research paper for pedophiles for my course in forensic psychology and chemical castration was a method that sometimes is still used for certain pedophiles. One surprising result I found was approx. 1/3 of chemically castrated individuals can still engage in sexual intercourse. It's also a pretty expensive option costing the country $5000-20,000 per year. From Guay, David R.P. (2009). Drug Treatment of Paraphilic and Nonparaphilic Sexual Disorders. Clinical Therapeutics, 31, 1-31. I think it's a good option though in theory but in practice, if ~30% can still engage, then it doesn't seem that effective. If applied to rapists also, assuming the ~30% still occurs, there will still be thousands of rapists still going at it.
Here in Spain they are using this exact method for punishing pedophiles.


Above you supported the death penalty for sexual assault and drug trafficking and in this list you don't. Which is it?
Ok that was a typing error… (I have changed the list above!)

However, there is a difference in “DRUG POSSESSION” and “DRUG DISTRIBUTION/TRAFFICKING”. Because, drug possession, is AFTER the money has been handed to the DEALERS (to punish drug possession, I think a time in prison or a rehab program should be used), and drug distribution/trafficking should have the death sentence if the quantity of drugs are exceeding 2 tones.


Huh? According to you there's too many to sentence to death but they should still be sentenced to death yet you don't think it will happen so you're against it. So do you support it or not because it's scrambled what you wrote above?
I do support it; however (in my opinion) it will NEVER happen!


:D:D:D

[INFERNO]

Cambridge University (United Kingdom)

That's not what I meant by source. Did you see how I gave my sources? Authors, title of the article or book, etc... . Saying the name of the university isn't a proper citation. I'm not being picky to be an asshole, I'm doing it because I intend to verify your information and to see if there's anything else I can use for this debate or for other debates, papers, etc... .


YES, you’re right. However, I dont think it is unfair to blame the drug dealers, because I believe that it is their responsibility to face the consequences for the fact that the drugs can be on the streets, suplied by them.

I agree, the drug dealers are responsible for the drugs being on the streets. However, that isn't addressing the question I asked of why they should be responsible for their customers overdosing.


Yes I do, because there is a difference between the family members kidnapping a person, than a complete utter stranger. This in my opinion is because at least the kidnapped person recognizes the person/persons that have kidnapped them.

So you do agree there is a criteria or distinction of kidnapping. Do you then agree there should be a distinct consequence depending on the motivations and what would the consequences be?


Here in Spain they are using this exact method for punishing pedophiles.

Interesting. Research shows though that it isn't the most effective way though.


However, there is a difference in “DRUG POSSESSION” and “DRUG DISTRIBUTION/TRAFFICKING”. Because, drug possession, is AFTER the money has been handed to the DEALERS (to punish drug possession, I think a time in prison or a rehab program should be used), and drug distribution/trafficking should have the death sentence if the quantity of drugs are exceeding 2 tones.

I agree with the consequence for drug possession.

[woody92]

That's not what I meant by source. Did you see how I gave my sources? Authors, title of the article or book, etc... . Saying the name of the university isn't a proper citation. I'm not being picky to be an asshole, I'm doing it because I intend to verify your information and to see if there's anything else I can use for this debate or for other debates, papers, etc... .
So you do agree there is a criteria or distinction of kidnapping. Do you then agree there should be a distinct consequence depending on the motivations and what would the consequences be?

I am afraid I am not going to give such information out in more detail.
I know your not being picky to be an arsehole, I do undeerstand where you are comeing from. However you have to know that i think differntly to the rest of people because I have understanding issues and other problems... (READ SOME OF MY OTHER POST ON OTHER THREADS TO FIND OUT MORE OR PM ME!).
yes i do agree there should be a distinct consequence depending on the motivations.


I am now getting stressed out with this thread so this is the LAST TIME I shall be posting on this thread! SORRY!:D

[KaelKaos]

Think about it. What's more cruel. Killing them? Or locking them up in a maximum security prison where they will sit and stare at walls for 23 hours a day for god knows how many years. I think people are too quick to judge the death penalty. In my opinion, locking someone up is just as bad.

[mustang]

Death is death, why should we spend money on keeping people in prison so that they can die there rather than save lives in hospitals?

Of course it should never be used for a first offence other than in the worst crimes,

There would have to be a crimes of passion law,

A law that states that a FULL jury must be in favor of death or a confession signed,

and there should be no waiting around, five years then the fall of the trap door,

and none of this wishy washy "It must be painless or it's inhumane" shit, your ending someones life this is the ultimate violation of human rights,

Is it civilized? Well The greatest Civilization: Rome did it, so did Japan, Ancient Grease, The Greatest Empire: Britain (Me) did it until a while ago, The US does it, and China, Russia, Royalist France, the French Republic, Prussia, Germany, Spain, Pre-Union Ireland, Pre-Union Scotland, Pre-Union Wales, Pre-British India, And the First Civilisation: Egypt, In the face of such Science, Knowledge and Glory, how can we say it is not civilized?

All Religions have used it,

Perhaps a need for more than one level of death?-yes of course!

Level one: Death by firing squad, for Murder and The most extreme disablement

Level two: Hanging, for Rape and mass murder,

Level three: Hung, Drawn, Then Quartered, this will be received by the worst serial killers, crown traitors and war criminals,

Level four: any of the above, but recoeded for public proof, only where nessary.

i compleatly agree with you